Mark Alexander – The Conservative-Patriot Christian Right

Trump Speech & Harris-Biden Tyranny Path

John R. Houk, Blog Editor

Posted March 3, 2021

I begin with the entirety of authentic-President Donald Trump’s 2/28/21 CPAC speech. Already cryptic-Conspiracy Theories are widespread about the speech, BUT for the most relevant part was the authentic-President’s reference to Election Crimes followed closely by the insinuation of a Republican Party reformation to get rid of corrupt leadership and fake Republicans (aka RINOs).

Frankly, I personally hold little hope to reform the Republican Party. I am willing to wait for a Trump reform success, yet if nothing changes in 2022 – NOTHING will ever change in the GOP. If Trump effects change, I’m with him. If Trump realizes the GOP is unreformable and begins a new Political Party, I’m with him. If Trump sticks with Republican backstabbing corruption, I am then looking for a new group of American Patriot leaders.

After the roughly 90-minutes of authentic-President Trump, I am cross posting Mark Alexander’s musing that Dementia Joe’s days are nearing an end as a fraudulently elected President as Dem-Marxists openly dump him to be replaced by Commie Kamala the current fraudulently elected Vice President.

JRH 3/3/21

I need your generosity in 2021 via – credit cards, check cards

& debit cards are accepted by my PayPal account:

Please Support NCCR

Or if donating you can support by getting in the Coffee from home business making yourself extra cash – OR just buy some FEEL GOOD coffee, that includes immune boosting products. Big Tech Censorship is pervasive – Share voluminously on all social media platforms!

**************************

Bitchute VIDEO: PRESIDENT TRUMP: CPAC 2021 FULL SPEECH

Posted by Free Speech Warrior

20956 subscribers – March 1st, 2021 03:03 UTC

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Clearing the Path for Harris to Bump Biden

Biden-Harris sign (biden small letters)

By MARK ALEXANDER

March 3, 2021

The Patriot Post

Seriously, we want to know, when will Joe go?

“Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression.” —James Madison (1788)

Last week, almost three dozen House Democrats issued a formal letter questioning Joe Biden’s mental acuity as it related to his sole presidential authority to launch nuclear weapons.

In that letter, principal signer Jimmy Panetta (D-CA) asked that Biden give up his unilateral authority because, “Vesting one person with this authority entails risks.” Panetta tactfully noted, “Past presidents have threatened to attack other countries with nuclear weapons or exhibited behavior that caused other officials to express concern about the president’s judgment,” and asked that Biden “install additional checks and balances.”

Translation: “Mr. President, you are terminally non compos mentis, and we don’t want your finger alone on the launch button.”

Given the timing of that letter, combined with the fact that, since their “unity” inauguration, Biden’s uber-leftist president-in-waiting, Kamala Harris, has been rapidly assuming duties generally reserved for the president, is it any wonder that she’s now running an office pool on when she’ll bump Biden off his box?

Some on our team don’t think he’ll finish the year. I’m not sure he will finish the month.

Biden and Harris were swept into office on a tsunami of unverifiable bulk-mail ballots after a mass media pre-election cover-up of Biden’s ChiCom corruption — made possible by the collusion between the Democrat Party, their Leftmedia propagandists, and their Big Tech speech suppressors.

The Demo/media co-conspirators combined forces to elect Creepy Joe, but leftists of all ages were really supporting Harris. She is, like Bernie Sanders, the socialist they wanted, and indeed Harris voted with Sanders on 92% of legislation before the Senate in the two years she served.

The Biden/Harris ticket was the inverse of the Obama/Biden ticket, with the radical unknown on the top unable to draw the more moderate Demo voters without adding Biden. Last year, because Biden won the Demo primary in a large field of mostly leftist candidates, he needed a leftist on the bottom of his ticket to win.

In August of last year, when Biden announced Harris as his running mate — despite her abysmal primary performance — I titled my profile of Harris, “Actually It’s the ‘Harris-Biden’ Ticket. I wrote, “It may be ‘Biden-Harris 2020’ on the ballot, but it’s really Harris ‘21-’22-’23-’24, and she is a perilous Trump opponent.” Just ask Donald Trump!

Noting that Biden’s handlers completed their “selection of his [Insert Leftist Woman of Color Here] ticket requirement” just ahead of the Demo convention, it was clear that neither Michelle Obama nor Susan Rice passed Joe’s “sniff test.”

It was equally clear that the then-78-year-old Biden still had enough cognitive processing ability to know he was on borrowed time, even declaring himself a “transitional candidate” early in his campaign.

Recall that in public forums just before the election, Harris made a very deliberate reference to “a Harris administration, together with Joe Biden.” Following the script, the next day, Biden referenced a “Harris-Biden administration.” In Biden’s case, this might have been a “slip of the teleprompter,” but the point stands. Harris is at the helm and she is a perilous threat to Liberty.

I believe Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Chuck Schumer scripted Biden’s “transition,” the rapid succession setup to replace him with Harris. Their scheme is not unprecedented. In 1944, when it was evident to his Democrat Party handlers that Franklin Delano Roosevelt would not survive his fourth term, they tapped Sen. Harry Truman (D-MO) as his successor — who indeed did succeed FDR just months after his January 1945 inauguration for a fourth term.

Weeks before the election, Pelosi seeded the 25th Amendment legislation for Biden’s path to resign. As I noted then, “Pelosi’s target is, ostensibly, Trump. But if Biden wins, this will provide Democrats plausible deniability to remove him. Of course, he’ll be complicit in that political maneuver, and ‘acquiesce’ to House Democrats in order to cover the fact that the real candidate has been Kamala Harris all along, thus not causing protest from his supporters that the transition was fixed before the election.”

And Trump agreed with that assessment: “Crazy Nancy Pelosi is looking at the 25th Amendment in order to replace Joe Biden with Kamala Harris. The Dems want that to happen fast because Sleepy Joe is out of it!!!”

Biden-Harris actual campaign plan

So, when will Joe go?

Indicative of how short the puppeteer strings are, now 40 days into his administration, Biden’s handlers have not allowed him to hold any solo press conferences.

And when Joe does go, there is a pesky constitutional question that will have to be resolved: Is Harris eligible to be president?

Now, for the record, we did not join the parade denying Barack Obama’s citizenship, because that was a rat hole down which a lot of conservative political capital was wasted. However, for those of us who still understand that our Republic is only as strong as the Rule of Law upon which it was founded, the question of Harris’s citizenship, and thus eligibility, is far more compelling than the questions raised about Obama.

Article II, Section 1 of our Constitution stipulates, “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President…”

Though Harris was born in California, recall that her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, was a scientist who emigrated from India, and her estranged father Donald Harris, from whom she inherited her slave-trading legacy, was a Stanford University economist who emigrated from Jamaica. Her mother’s citizenship status was unclear, and her father’s citizenship was listed as Jamaican. After her parents divorced, at age 12 Harris left the country with her mother to live in Montreal, where she spent her teenage years — years about which she says very little.

Of course, Leftmedia talkingheads (and even a few conservative outlets that should know better) reject any consideration of the Harris citizenship question, claiming it’s “racist” to bring it up. But whether Kamala Harris is a “natural-born” U.S. citizen has nothing to do with her race. It has only to do with the circumstances of her birth. Thus, the inquiry about eligibility is relevant.

Despite the Demos’ “open borders” agenda, key to establishing their “permanent majority” that subordinates the law and welfare of American citizens to their political objectives, the notion of “birthright citizenship” is erroneous. It is clear that the drafters and ratifiers of the 14th Amendment never intended it to confer citizenship on the children of illegal aliens or those in our country legally but who are not citizens.

Leftmedia “fact-checkers” who dismiss Harris’s parents’ status as irrelevant completely ignore that aspect of the question. In fact, parental legal status is the entire premise of the “anchor baby” debate.

When Harris arrives at the presidential podium, the Supreme Court will have to answer the question of her eligibility. And if it’s determined that she is not eligible, maybe that’s Pelosi’s plan — as the speaker is next in the line of succession for the presidency.

Meanwhile, the most perilous threat posed by a Harris presidency is not about race or birth status. The real threat to American Liberty is her leftist agenda. She’s a radical leftist fraud who cannot be trusted with power.

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Pro Deo et Libertate — 1776

Please join us in prayer for our nation’s Military Patriots standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, for their families, and for our nation’s First Responders. We also ask prayer for your Patriot team, and our mission to, first and foremost, support and defend our Republic’s Founding Principles of Liberty, and to ignite the fires of freedom in the hearts and minds of our countrymen.

____________________________

Clearing the Path for Harris to Bump Biden

The Patriot Post is protected speech, as enumerated in the First Amendment and enforced by the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, in accordance with the endowed and unalienable Rights of All Mankind.

Antifa: The White Radical Organizers of Black Urban Violence

Since the Dems and MSM lie to American faces, Mark Alexander presents some truthful facts about Dems, Antifa, Leftist Academics and the MSM. Unless you persist with sheeple blinders, reality points to a Communist insurrection.

JRH 6/4/20

Your generosity is always appreciated – various credit, check

& debit cards are accepted by my PayPal account:

Please Support NCCR

Or support by getting in the Coffee from home business –

OR just buy some FEEL GOOD coffee, that includes immune boosting products.

******************************

Antifa: The White Radical Organizers of Black Urban Violence

Antifa’s bond is radical ideology — the same model that binds Islamist terrorist networks.

By Mark Alexander

June 3, 2020

The Patriot Post

“The mobs of the great cities add just so much to the support of pure government as sores do to the strength of the human body. It is the manners and spirit of a people, which preserve a republic in vigor. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution.” —Thomas Jefferson (1787)

Antifa Thugs w-Ronald Reagan quote on Fascism

In 2017, I posted an analysis that also served as a warning: “The Antifa Movement — Coming to a Theater Near You.”

It has arrived.

Over the last week, we have been inundated with videos of “George Floyd protests.” This is how Democrats and their Leftmedia propagandists are promoting their violent rioting constituents who have looted and torched their urban poverty plantations across the nation.

That grossly dishonors George Floyd and offends the legitimacy of peaceful objections regarding his death.

The now-countless videos of citizens being attacked by these “protesters” affirm what Minnesota Democrat Governor Tim Walz declared after a few days of those “protests”: “The situation in Minneapolis is no longer in any way about the murder of George Floyd. It is about attacking civil society, instilling fear, and disrupting our great cities.”

That was about the only thing Walz got right about Floyd’s death, a clear-cut case of police negligence that predictably, after a racially charged death in Georgia teed up the tension, sparked the ensuing opportunistic riots. That notwithstanding, it will be a high bar to convict the officer(s) involved with premeditated murder or a racist hate crime, though Minnesota’s radical racist Attorney General Keith Ellison, an acolyte of fellow Islamist racist Louis Farrakhan and black-supremacist haters across the nation, will do his best.

No doubt the coming “Ellison Show” will shed light on the reelection campaign of Minneapolis Islamist Representative Ilhan Omar, who has helped turn that city into the terrorist-recruiting capital of the U.S.

The urban insurrections across our great country have left a wake of dead or injured civilians and police from coast to coast, including a murdered black federal agent in California, an officer on life support in Las Vegas, four officers shot in St. Louis along with one retired black police captain murdered while protecting a friend’s store from looters, two officers shot in Richmond, officers intentionally hit by vehicles in the Bronx and Buffalo, and dozens of Secret Service agents injured while protecting the White House.

In New York, Governor Andrew Cuomo blamed the NYPD for not protecting its citizens while insisting, “I stand behind the protesters and their message.” Cuomo and other Demo governors have emboldened the rioters after months of the CV19 lockdown. Cuomo declared, “Yes protest, yes express your outrage, but be responsible because the last thing we want to do is see a spike in the number of COVID cases.”

So, burn the city down but keep your mask on…

Meanwhile, on the streets of New York, an officer was ambushed and beaten, another officer was hit in the head with a brick, and an officer was intentionally hit by a vehicle.

NYPD Chief Terence Monahan unleashed his fury upon Cuomo: “Tell Andrew Cuomo to get out there on the street with us. … I’m watching my men and women out there dealing with stuff that no cop should ever have to deal with — bricks, bottles, rocks. … I’ve never seen anything like this.”

One of the most moving messages from law enforcement came from Richmond, Virginia, Police Chief Will Smith. He broke down recounting the details of how rioters blocked first responders from responding to a home fire an rescuing a two-year old was trapped inside. According to Chief Smith, they “intentionally set a fire to an occupied building” and “prohibited us from getting on scene.”

Arguably, riots across the nation were seeded by Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, who ordered police to stand down during the crucial early stages of unrest in that city. His message green-lighted the violence there and, by domino effect, in other cities. Frey became the latest in a long line of Democrat mayors condemning police and empowering rioters to loot and burn neighborhoods and assault anyone who dares stand in their way.

He and other Democrat politicos have, in recent years, propagated the Ferguson Effect — the predictable outcome after race-baiters vilified police nationwide as “racist” following the justifiable police shooting of street thug Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.

Researcher Heather Mac Donald, author of The War on Cops, notes that the post-Ferguson rise in crime “is due to officers’ reluctance to engage in precisely the proactive policing that has come under relentless attack as racist.” Law-enforcement officers working urban streets are now less likely to wade into the fray in crime-ridden minority communities for fear of being labeled racists. This has resulted in a surge of crime nationwide — a surge that has hurt precisely the people that “progressive” race-baiters purport to help.

In his second term, Barack Obama stoked the hatred of cops using Brown’s death, the chokehold death of career criminal Eric Garner in Staten Island, and the death of drug dealer Freddie Gray in Baltimore as political fodder to maintain black allegiance to the Democrat Party. He unleashed a disgraceful condemnation of police that directly resulted in the premeditated and racially motivated murders of two NYPD officers and likewise the sniper murder of five Dallas PD officers. Apparently for most Democrats, Blue Lives don’t matter.

MLK Protests vs Antifa Protests

Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake refused to back the police during the city’s 2015 riots, and it now ranks among the most dangerous cities in the nation — but this is typical of Democrat-controlled urban centers. In fact, on the Memorial Day weekend of George Floyd’s death, there were seven black-on-black murders in Baltimore alone — about which you didn’t hear anything because those deaths don’t fit the Demos’ political narrative. Or, to put it more bluntly, those black lives don’t matter to the Left.

For the record, there is nothing in the leftist narrative or in the current riots that comport with Martin Luther King’s vision for racial reconciliation.

Fanning the race-bait flames, Governor Walz absurdly suggested that the Minnesota riots were agitated by “white supremacists” from out of state, saying, “What I’ve seen on this, yes. We’re seeing evidence of some pretty sophisticated attempts to cause problems.” His Demo Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan also claimed, “There are white supremacist … who are burning down the institutions that are core to our identity and who we are.”

Now, it would not surprise me if some white racist idiots were present but there is no evidence to support that. Even Howard Graves with the leftist SPLC told The New York Times, “I have not seen any clear evidence that white supremacists or militiamen are masking up and going out to burn and loot.”

In fact, the white agitators Walz saw were not racists, but they were haters — radical leftists who have played a key role in the riots in Minneapolis and elsewhere around the nation.

Those mostly middle-class white radicals identify with the so-called “antifa movement” — the self-styled anti-fascists who actually embody many attributes of fascism. I note “identify” because there is no “antifa organization” per se, and no hierarchical leadership structure. Their bond is radical ideology — the same ideological model that binds Islamist terrorist networks. They are a network of adolescents of all ages who use “black bloc” tactics — dressing in black with black face masks and bandannas. Some antifa adherents and many of their ideological supporters are the effluent of generational wealth and privilege.

Democrats feign shock at the level of rioter organization, without acknowledging a major factor in that organization are the antifa protagonists. For example, leftist New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said that the riots had an organizational element directed by “people who came to do violence in a systematic, organized fashion.” He added, “We are seeing something new, and not just here in New York City but all over the country, and we have to recognize it and we have to address it.”

While Walz, de Blasio, and other leftists would have you believe this is “something new” in order to tie it to hatred for Donald Trump this election year, these riots have a well-documented genesis. Their historic roots are in socialist, communist, and anarchist groups in Europe. Rioters had cells in the U.S. during the late 1980s but faded in the mid-2000s until like-minded miscreants re-congealed after Barack Obama’s 2008 election. The current cadres of violent organizers have roots with the radical socialist “Occupy” movement that was seeded and empowered by Obama. He was the inspiration for those rioters a decade ago, as they infested cities from coast to coast, including Oakland, Seattle, Denver, Austin, Chicago, Atlanta, Baltimore, New York, and Boston.

They reemerged in force at the 2017 Charlottesville riots and have been gaining even more ground nationwide since.

According to Dartmouth professor Mark Bray, author of Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook, antifa radicals define “fascism” as whatever suits the moment. Bray says, “There is a lot of debate about what constitutes fascism, and it’s a legitimate question to ask — where does one draw the line?” He notes, “The slippery-slope argument, which is that if you start calling everyone a fascist and depriving them of a platform, where does it end?”

Notably, Bray concludes: “These are revolutionary leftists. … These are self-described revolutionaries. They have no allegiance to liberal democracy, which they believe has failed the marginalized communities they’re defending. They’re anarchists and communists who are way outside the traditional conservative-liberal spectrum.”

They are also way outside the limits of the law and civil society.

Antifa adherents are now using black inner-city frustration to inflame the anti-fascist fascist agenda, which has nothing to do with “justice” for anyone and everything to do with undermining our Constitution and Rule of Law. And their tactics are sophisticated.

Consequently, the Trump administration rightly plans to designate antifa as a “terrorist organization.”

As Attorney General Bill Barr confirmed, “In many places it appears the violence is planned, organized, and driven by far left extremist groups and anarchic groups using antifa-like tactics.” In an official DoJ statement, he added, “Groups of outside radicals and agitators are exploiting the situation to pursue their own separate, violent, and extremist agenda. It is time to stop watching the violence and to confront and stop it. … The violence instigated and carried out by Antifa … is domestic terrorism and will be treated accordingly.”

Don’t forget the RICO statutes!

Mark Bray Antifa tactics Demonstrates MN AG Ellison Legal Allegiance

Note that the aforementioned racist, Keith Ellison, and his son are antifa backers. Recall that when Ellison posed with a copy of the “Antifa Handbook” for his social-media page, he posted it with this comment: “I just found the book that (strikes) fear in the heart of @realdonaldtrump.”

Responding to the violence, President Trump announced that he might utilize the Insurrection Act if the looting and destruction continues unabated. He declared, “My first and highest duty as president is to defend our great country and the American people. I swore an oath to uphold the laws of our nation, and that is exactly what I will do.”

He acknowledged: “All Americans were rightly sickened and revolted by the brutal death of George Floyd. My administration is fully committed that, for George and his family, justice will be served. He will not have died in vain. But we cannot allow the righteous cries and peaceful protesters to be drowned out by an angry mob.”

“America is founded upon the Rule of Law,” he concluded. “It is the foundation of our prosperity, our freedom, and our very way of life. But where there is no law, there is no opportunity. Where there is no justice, there is no liberty. Where there is no safety, there is no future.”

Of course, the president’s plans were met with ridicule by Democrat racial flame-fanners led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who claimed Trump is “fanning of the flames of discord, bigotry and violence.” They were, of course, joined by equally indignant race-baiters Joe Biden and Barack Obama.

But as legal analyst Andrew McCarthy insists, “The president and governors must work together to restore order, including by deployment of the military where that is necessary.”

Finally, Biden and the rest of the Democrat Party protagonists are repeating the race-bait mantra about the “systemic racism” that they claim infests the ranks of every level of our justice system, while insisting “I can’t breathe.” But allow me this observation: The “systemic racism” canard is a rhetorical caricature of the reality those of us who are or have been in law enforcement experience in service to our communities and our nation. There are people who hold racist views on ALL sides, and there is no room for it anywhere. That is especially true among the ranks of those charged with upholding the law — bad cops need to be purged. But as Heather Mac Donald’s research concludes, there is no “systemic racism” in our system of justice.

And a footnote: This video (language warning) of a couple defending an REI store in California speaks volumes about the difference between legitimate protest and violent looting opportunists.

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Pro Deo et Libertate — 1776

Join us in prayer for our Patriots in uniform and their families — Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen — standing in harm’s way, and for our nation’s First Responders. We also ask prayer for your Patriot team, that our mission would seed and encourage the Spirit of Liberty in the hearts and minds of our countrymen.

___________________________

Our Mission

The Patriot Post is steadfast in our mission to extend the endowment of Liberty to the next generation by advocating for individual rights and responsibilities, supporting the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and promoting free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. We are a rock-solid conservative touchstone for the expanding ranks of grassroots American Patriots from all walks of life. Our mission and operation budgets are not financed by any political or special interest groups, and to protect our editorial integrity, we accept no advertising. We are sustained solely by you. Please support The Patriot Fund today!

*PUBLIUS*

Dem-Ukraine Impeachment Corruption

An intro by John R. Houk

Posted December 19, 2019

The Democratic Party is as corrupt as many of the Ukrainian oligarchs courted to depose President Trump. Giuliani ignored and vilified by the Dems and their propaganda machine MSM touches on some Dem-Ukrainian corruption. THEN Mark Alexander has some Original Intent thoughts on Impeachment.

JRH 12/19/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

Support this Blog HERE. Or support by getting in

the Coffee from home business – OR just buy some healthy coffee.

Blog Editor: Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you belong to.

***************************

Giuliani Says He’s Uncovered ‘Two Major’ Money-Laundering/Bribery Schemes Involving Joe Biden, Obama Admin

By Megan Fox

December 17, 2019

PJ Media

From right to left, Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry and Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew, Friday, Sept. 25, 2015, on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

Rudy Giuliani went on Fox News with Laura Ingraham on Monday and dropped a huge bomb onto former Ukranian Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch and Joe Biden.

“What I uncovered, there are two major schemes,” said Giuliani. “One for 7.5 billion and the other one for 5 billion in money laundering that went on all through the Obama administration, part of it involved Joe Biden, the bribery part.” Giuliani went on to implicate American law enforcement at the very top for not investigating what he says is corruption.

“It’s a disgrace that he’s not under investigation in America, maybe because our law enforcement is too afraid, but the reality is it’s a complete defense for the president. When the president of the United States was asking the president of the Ukraine to investigate, he was asking him to investigate crimes at the highest level of both governments….he’s being impeached for doing the right thing.”

Giuliani also tweeted on Tuesday that “Yovanovitch needed to be removed for many reasons most critical she was denying visas to Ukrainians who wanted to come to the US and explain Dem corruption in Ukraine. She was OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE and that’s not the only thing she was doing. She at minimum enabled Ukrainian collusion.”

Yovanovitch needed to be removed for many reasons most critical she was denying visas to Ukrainians who wanted to come to US and explain Dem corruption in Ukraine. She was OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE and that’s not the only thing she was doing. She at minimum enabled Ukrainian collusion.

— Rudy Giuliani (@RudyGiuliani) December 17, 2019

Democrats have accused Giuliani of forcing Yovanovitch out for political reasons. He says that’s garbage. “I didn’t need her out of the way, I forced her out because she’s corrupt. I came back with a document that will show unequivocally that she committed perjury when she said she turned down the visa for [Ukrainian prosecutor] Mr. Shokin because of corruption. The fact is on the record…the reason given is because he’d had an operation and hadn’t recovered yet. The operation was two years before. There’s documented evidence that she committed perjury.”

These documents, according to Giuliani, were turned over to the State Department and included four other witness statements corroborating the allegations.

“I have 4 witnesses who will testify that she personally turned down their visas because they were going to come here and give evidence either against Biden or against the Democratic Party,” Giuliani told Ingraham. “There’s no question she that she was acting corruptly in that position and had to be removed. She should have been fired if the State Department weren’t part of the Deep State.”

Giuliani first heard about Yovanovitch’s deception from former Rep. Pete Sessions and a “number of congressman” who told him what Yovanovitch was up to. “When I interviewed witnesses they told me she was specifically holding up visas in order to obstruct the investigation of collusion in the Ukraine and specifically to obstruct the Biden investigation. I have that testimony under oath. I gave it to the State Department, they never investigated a single witness. When they say she’s innocent, it’s innocent without investigation. It is a cover-up.”

Giuliani says he has audio recordings to back up his story that also implicate Barack Obama in the scandal. “I also have tape recordings with Ukrainian officials including career prosecutors who say that during the Obama era the corruption in Ukraine became substantially worse and that she [Yovanovitch] was a contributor to the corruption.”

Senior officials in the White House are reportedly worried about Giuliani and his insistence on being vocal about Democrats’ involvement in Ukrainian corruption. He doesn’t care. “Joe Biden was involved in a multi-million dollar corrupt scheme along with a number of other Democrats. It’s never been resolved. They’ve never been held to account. As long as those issues remain between the U.S. and Ukraine we really can’t fight corruption in the Ukraine and the fact is that there are numerous Ukranian witnesses that want to come to the U.S. and explain how much during the Obama administration Ukraine was corrupted by Americans.”

The question now should be, why haven’t our State Department and Department of Justice launched an official investigation into what happened to billions of dollars of American aid money that was sent to Ukraine? Why doesn’t anyone in our government seem to want to know where it went? “I have a report from the Ukrainian accounting office in 2017 showing that 5.3 billion dollars in aid seems to have been wasted,” Giuliani said. “Our State Department under Yovanovitch went to the police and told them not to do the investigation… because our embassy was involved in wasting a great deal of that money by giving it to NGOs and when I was asked ‘do the NGOs have a political bent?’ They were left of left.”

Giuliani reports that he has been trying to get anyone in law enforcement to look at his evidence and no one will. “I am willing to show this to anybody who wants to pay attention to it. So far law enforcement has been afraid to look at it.” Obviously, it’s time for Giuliani to release the evidence to the press. PJ Media reached out to Giuliani’s office and offered to publish this evidence, but have not heard back yet.

Watch the interview below.

VIDEO: Giuliani admits to forcing out Yovanovitch: ‘She’s corrupt’

[Posted by Fox News

3.9M subscribers – Dec 16, 2019

Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani returns to Fox News claiming he has proof that impeachment is a ‘cover-up’ and explains why he was recently in Ukraine. … MORE TO READ]

Megan Fox is the author of “Believe Evidence; The Death of Due Process from Salome to #MeToo.” Follow on Twitter @MeganFoxWriter

+++++++++++++++++++

The Impeachment Theater of the Absurd

Ironically, by claiming he needs more witnesses, Schumer is admitting that the House impeachment case is insufficient!

By Mark Alexander

Dec. 18, 2019

The Patriot Post

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” —U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 4 (1789)

Dems Want Impeachment Cuz Don’t Trust Voters

In Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton outlined the Senate’s powers of impeachment, noting: “Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body would be likely to feel confidence enough in its own situation, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an individual accused, and the representatives of the people, his accusers.”

In 1788, our Founders anticipated that future senators should possess at least a modicum of decency, such that they would be able to judge articles of impeachment on the merits of such charges.

But Hamilton also noted that impeachment would “agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused.” He concluded, “In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”

The partisanship that attended the impeachment of Bill Clinton for perjury (for which he was disbarred) was but a mere shadow of the all-consuming hatred the Democrat Party has for Donald Trump — a partisan hatred fanned and fueled nationwide by their shameless Leftmedia publicists.

And it’s within this disgraceful climate that the House of Representatives will vote today, on partisan lines, to refer articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial.

In preparation for that show trial, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared, “I think we’re going to get almost entirely partisan impeachment. I would anticipate an almost entirely partisan outcome in the Senate as well.”

He added, “Everything I do during this, I’m coordinating with the White House counsel. There will be no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this.”

Laughably, McConnell’s transparency led a demand from Sen. Chuck Schumer that he “recuse himself” from the entire impeachment proceeding: “Do the American people want Mitch McConnell not to be an impartial juror in this situation? I would ask every one of our Republican colleagues, ‘Do you want someone who proudly says they are not impartial to be on a jury, judging high crimes and misdemeanors, serious charges against the president of the United States?’ And I would ask every one of my Republican Senate colleagues, ‘Are you impartial jurors or are you like Mitch McConnell, proud not to be?’”

McConnell responded to Schumer, “I am not an impartial jury. This is a political process. There’s not anything judicial about it. Impeachment is a political decision.”

Of course, the list of those who most arguably should be recused because of conflict of interest or lack of impartiality starts with the most biased members of the Senate — those Demo candidates hoping to unseat Trump: Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker, and Michael Bennet.

Hypothetically, a non-voluntary recusal would require a motion by one senator and would be decided by Chief Justice John Roberts, presiding. His ruling would then be appealed for a full floor vote. But if such a dubious claim were made and a vote called, it would likely result in a domino effect — 99 more votes, with the Republican majority ultimately prevailing by recusing each minority member, one by one.

None of that should happen in the Senate.

Corrupt Dems Reason Electoral College Exists

But weeks before these howls for McConnell’s recusal, I contemplated this recusal issue as House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler displayed his historic, long-seething hatred for Trump while presiding over Rep. Adam Schiff’s contrived impeachment charges — charges that were devoid of any evidence of “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

By “historic,” I don’t mean since the 2016 election, but since Nadler was in the New York State Assembly 35 years ago.

Back then, their dispute started when Nadler opposed Trump’s development of blighted sections of New York, becoming his arch adversary. So contentious was their antipathy for each other that in Trump’s 2000 book, The America We Deserve, he singled out Nadler as “one of the most egregious hacks in contemporary politics.”

After Trump’s election, Nadler posted on his official website a manifesto for the resistance detailing a plan for how to dispose of Trump: “We cannot wait four years to vote Mr. Trump out of office, as members of the GOP Senate and House Majorities have already stated that they will facilitate the Trump agenda. … So we must do everything we can to stop Trump and his extreme agenda now.”

Nadler called for “fierce battles against every regressive action he takes — from personnel appointments to his legislative program — in order to thwart or at least slow them down [and expose] his Republican enablers in Congress, voting them out of office in 2018, with the goal of taking back either the House or the Senate for Democratic control.”

“To achieve this,” insisted Nadler, “we must keep our eyes on two important goals: depressing Trump’s public support and dividing the Congressional GOP from him and from each other.”

And Democrats want McConnell to recuse himself?

If the head of the Judiciary Committee were held to a standard even remotely similar to that of a judge, Nadler’s vitriolic animus toward Trump would have been grounds for recusal, or even impeachment if necessary. Indeed, a legitimate process would’ve seen Nadler ousted before the first day’s testimony.

In his opening statement last month, Nadler declared: “We cannot rely on an election to solve our problems.”

In other words, Nadler and his fellow congressional Democrats cannot rely on the will and the wisdom of the American people. Clearly, they had no intention of doing so — even before Trump took office.

The evidence of their slo-mo coup d’état to take down Trump is now emerging, most notably with the exposure last week of the felonious FBI/FISA fiasco. A handful of Demo deep-state operatives in the FBI and CIA used that subterfuge to seed the Mueller investigation charade, which led to the current double-standard impeachment inquisition parade.

And recall what Nadler said about the impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1998: “We must not overturn an election and remove a president from office … without an overwhelming consensus of the American people. There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment supported by one of our major political parties and opposed by the other.”

So, after Nadler’s predictable party-line committee vote, we now await the next episode of this political theater — a House vote that will most assuredly be a “narrowly voted impeachment … supported by one of our major political parties and opposed by the other.”

For his part, on the eve of the House vote, Trump issued a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi Tuesday that included the following key points in his typical rhetorical form:

“This impeachment represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional abuse of power by Democrat Lawmakers, unequaled in nearly two and a half centuries of American legislative history. The Articles of Impeachment introduced by the House Judiciary Committee are not recognizable under any standard of Constitutional theory, interpretation, or jurisprudence. They include no crimes, no misdemeanors, and no offenses… Your first claim, ‘Abuse of Power,’ is a completely disingenuous, meritless, and baseless… The second claim, so-called ‘Obstruction of Congress,’ is preposterous and dangerous. … Even worse than offending the Founding Fathers, you are offending Americans of faith by continually saying ‘I pray for the President,’ when you know this statement is not true… Speaker Pelosi, you admitted just last week at a public forum that your party’s impeachment effort has been going on for ‘two and a half years,’ long before you ever heard about a phone call with Ukraine. … Before the Impeachment Hoax, it was the Russian Witch Hunt. … You are the ones interfering in America’s elections. You are the ones subverting America’s Democracy. You are the ones Obstructing Justice.”

Mark Alexander Quote on Pelosipalooza

Trump continued: “By proceeding with your invalid impeachment, you are violating your oaths of office, you are breaking your allegiance to the Constitution, and you are declaring open war on American Democracy. … You and your party are desperate to distract from America’s extraordinary economy, incredible jobs boom, record stock market, soaring confidence, and flourishing citizens. Your party simply cannot compete with our record. … Any member of Congress who votes in support of impeachment — against every shred of truth, fact, evidence, and legal principle — is showing deeply they revile the voters and how truly they detest America’s Constitutional order. … Our Founders feared the tribalization of partisan politics, and you are bringing their worst fears to life.”

And that, fellow Patriots, adequately sums up this sorry affair. And the House vote comes in the same week we learned about the politically motivated FISA court abuses that seeded the whole effort to undermine Trump’s presidency.

The House of Representatives has initiated impeachment proceedings more than 60 times since 1789. Of the 19 federal officeholders or officials who’ve been brought up on impeachment charges, only eight have been convicted — all federal judges. Of the two presidents tried in the Senate — Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton — both had the charges dismissed after the Senate failed to meet its two-thirds majority requirement for conviction.

The Demo charges against Trump will also be dismissed, for the reasons outlined by the president in his letter to Pelosi. But the trivialization of impeachment removes the already low bar on constitutional Rule of Law, creating a menacing threat to Liberty.

In order to keep the Demos’ Trump/Russia/Ukraine narrative on life support after the Senate vote, Schumer will continue to claim that Trump is guilty, but that Republicans wouldn’t allow his witnesses to prove it. Those would be the same witnesses that the House could have called in its hearings — but didn’t in order to provide Schumer his “witness denial” layup. Ironically, by claiming he needs more witnesses, Schumer is admitting that the House impeachment case is insufficient!

In Federalist No. 69, Alexander Hamilton described impeachment as a pressure release valve in order to avoid the “crisis of a national revolution.” But this round of impeachment, if it were to actually succeed, would most assuredly set up a “crisis of a national revolution.”

P.S. Patriots, the most cost-effective investment you can make to ensure the future of Liberty is to support The Patriot Post. We’re the Web’s most influential grassroots journal for promoting freedom and challenging the dominant Leftmedia narrative. We rely 100% on the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you, so please support our Year-End Campaign today. Thank you.

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Pro Deo et Libertate — 1776

++++++++++++++++++

__________________________

Giuliani Says He’s Uncovered ‘Two Major’ Money-Laundering/Bribery Schemes Involving Joe Biden, Obama Admin

_______________________

The Impeachment Theater of the Absurd

Wrong Wray — It’s NOT the Whole FBI

Current FBI Director Christopher Wray views FBI exoneration of targeting President Trump before and after election in 2016 in the IG Michael Horowitz Report. President Trump should view another firing of another Deep State FBI Director AND replace Wray with someone willing to drain the swamp stench of Dem influence in that Agency.

JRH 12/11/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

Support this Blog HERE. Or support by getting in

the Coffee from home business – OR just buy some healthy coffee.

*****************************

Wrong Wray — It’s NOT the Whole FBI

The vast majority of the 12,484 special agents and 2,950 intelligence analysts in the FBI steadfastly abide by their oaths.

By Mark Alexander

Dec. 11, 2019

The Patriot Post

On Tuesday, FBI Director Christopher Wray issued his response to the Justice Department’s FISA report, concluding: “Finally, we will review the performance and conduct of certain FBI employees who were referenced in the Report’s recommendations — including managers, supervisors, and senior officials at the time. The FBI will take appropriate disciplinary action where warranted. Notably, many of the employees described in the report are no longer employed at the FBI.”

But in a follow-up interview, when asked if he had any evidence that the FBI unfairly targeted Trump’s campaign, Wray replied, “I don’t.” If his response was specifically related to the FISA report evidence that was limited in its scope, then Wray’s comments are in line. But if he was suggesting that there is no evidence of bias among “managers, supervisors, and senior officials at the time,” that assertion is ludicrous and earned this response from Donald Trump: “I don’t know what report [Wray] was reading, but it sure wasn’t the one given to me.”

Moreover, Director Wray was asked a leading question as to whether he was offended by suggestions that the FBI is part of the “deep state.”

He took the bait on a broad question: “I think that’s the kind of label that is a disservice to the 37,000 men and women who work at the FBI who I think tackle their jobs with professionalism, with rigor, with objectivity, with courage … so that’s not a term I would ever use to describe our workforce and I think it’s an affront to them.”

Wrong, Wray — the question asked was absurd and disingenuous. He knows better and should have chosen his words much more carefully. The “deep state” assertions have always been limited to a handful of FBI personnel Wray identified in his response — those high-ranking “managers, supervisors, and senior officials” with strong bias in favor of Hillary Clinton. This has never been about the FBI at large.

Almost two years ago, in “The FISA Memo and the Demos’ Deep-State Operatives,” I noted:

Democrats and their Leftmedia outlets are promoting the diversionary false narrative that serious questions about the political motives of those who seeded the FISA warrants are a “broad assault on the Department of Justice and FBI” by President Trump and Republicans. According to Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), “This wasn’t about oversight. This is about … attacking the DoJ and FBI, a transparent attempt to discredit these institutions.”

As I noted then, in fact, it is Democrats like Schiff who are broad-brushing the FISA memo inquiry to include “institutions” rather than “individuals.” The memo names a handful of corrupt Democrat deep-state operatives in the DoJ and FBI who colluded to help Hillary Clinton defeat Donald Trump and who, after his stunning upset, sought to undermine the legitimacy of Trump’s presidency.

As I also noted then: “The vast majority of the 12,484 special agents and 2,950 intelligence analysts in the FBI steadfastly abide by their oaths ‘to support and defend’ our Constitution. They also strive to live up to the FBI motto: Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity. Indeed, most FBI agents, whose reputations are being sullied by the corrupt actions of a few high-ranking officials, are both personally and professionally offended by that corruption.”

Again yesterday in “The DoJ FISA Report — Trump Was Right,” I noted that “Hillary Clinton’s backers were high-ranking FBI bureaucrats” — as Wray identified in his report.

For the record, it was and remains Democrats who, by advancing this charade to take Trump down, have cast a cloud over the entire FBI — a cloud that will take years to dissipate. When Wray answers loaded media questions without redress, he also throws his whole agency under the bus.

+++++++++++++++++++

__________________________

Support The Patriot Fund

Our Mission

The Patriot Post is steadfast in our mission to extend the endowment of Liberty to the next generation by advocating for individual rights and responsibilities, supporting the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and promoting free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. We are a rock-solid conservative touchstone for the expanding ranks of grassroots Americans Patriots from all walks of life. We are not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we do not accept advertising to ensure our advocacy is not restrained by commercial influence. Our mission and operation budgets are funded entirely by the contributions from Patriots like you. Please support The Patriot Fund today!

The Left’s Moderation of Conservative Media

In case you were unaware, the online publication BuzzFeed is a lying Left-Wing Internet rag hugely responsible for spreading Leftist propaganda, disinformation, misinformation and even tipping toward downright lies. In essence BuzzFeed is the Prince of notorious Fake News. Of most infamy is the publication of the discredited Steele Dossier used as a Dem pretext to exact a silent coup against President Trump via the mechanizations of a Left-dominated Federal bureaucracy in the DOJ and various Intelligence Agencies.

Looking at BuzzFeed’s infamous notoriety for Leftist hit pieces, Mark Alexander in his Thursday column openly wonders about Buzzfeed’s interest in the operation The Patriot Post.

JRH 7/18/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

SUPPORT The Patriot Post

**********************

The Left’s Moderation of Conservative Media

“They are relentless and use Gestapo tactics.”

By Mark Alexander

July 17, 2019

The Patriot Post

“If by the liberty of the press were understood merely the liberty of discussing the propriety of public measures and political opinions, let us have as much of it as you please. But if it means the liberty of affronting, calumniating and defaming one another, I, for my part, own myself willing to part with my share of it.” —Benjamin Franklin (1789)

Digital Media Monitors

Sometimes I am able to plan a topic more than 48 hours ahead of my deadline. This started as one of those weeks. But as with the best-laid plans, sometimes it’s necessary to alter them. (I’ll say a bit more on that original topic at the end of this column.)

The Patriot Post has become the target of a thinly veiled effort to undermine the reach of our conservative voice. That effort was launched by one of the biggest entertainment/news tabloids on the Web, BuzzFeed, with a review claiming that we’re “the biggest mystery in conservative media” and raising questions about the team “behind one of the oldest conservative” online news organizations.

BuzzFeed’s media editor, its resident expert on “fake news” (I know, the irony is rich), has used that platform for his inquiry. When a Leftmedia outlet with a budget hundreds of times the size of our small grassroots organization targets us — a “David versus Goliath” contest, if you will — it creates a quandary.

We have a longstanding Patriot Post policy: “Don’t swap spit with a jackass.” But when the accuser has a huge platform, as one of our editors noted, “to leave misinformation uncontested is tantamount to suggesting that it’s true.” And while it’s likely that none of you, our readers, are even aware of the BuzzFeed accusations, rebut we must.

Sometimes criticism is intended to be constructive.

Last week, for example, I wrote about the rise of a new genre of digital-media arbiters of truth, in which I mentioned a new media accountability effort, NewsGuard, and explained how it worked. I further noted that whenever humans render opinions about the world around them, they inevitably bring a bias to that perspective.

However, undergoing NewsGuard’s process of evaluation was helpful to our team. It employs a battalion of professional journalists, which we have never claimed to be, and their questions and suggestions helped us improve what we do.

On the other hand, sometimes criticism is intended to be destructive. With BuzzFeed, and the leftist academic social-media “expert” who pointed them at us with a clear agenda, their intent was something other than constructive.

The inquiries about The Patriot Post started with BuzzFeed’s “fake news expert,” Toronto-based Media Editor Craig Silverman. He seems like a decent person whose left-of-center bias is mostly the byproduct of being caught in a Leftmedia echo chamber.

The timing of Silverman’s appointment to his current position is ironic, as it came just before BuzzFeed’s Leftmedia hacks published the infamous fake “Russian Dossier,” a completely fabricated opposition-research document funded by the Democrat Party and Hillary Clinton’s campaign. That provided the fodder that mainstream-media outlets like CNN and MSNBC needed to promote as the basis for the Democrat/MSM propaganda machine’s bogus two-year Trump/Russia collusion investigation, a ruse to obstruct Trump’s MAGA agenda.

Suffice it to say that the fake dossier has since been completely debunked, but not before BuzzFeed issued yet another bombshell fabrication, prompting special prosecutor Robert Mueller to take the unusual step of calling out the BuzzFeed report as fake news. Buzzfeed will never shed the ethical malpractice for this partisan “fake news” charades. (See “Beyond BuzzFeed: The 10 Worst, Most Embarrassing U.S. Media Failures on the Trump-Russia Story.”)

For his part, Silverman now distances himself from the term “fake news,” because Donald Trump has successfully hung that moniker where it belongs: around the necks of the Leftmedia. And while it’s entirely possible that Silverman really wants to eradicate the purveyors of misinformation, he’s leading that charge from one of the most prolific propagators of misinformation on the Web.

As you may know, BuzzFeed is having serious problems.

Founded in 2006 by Left Coast native Jonah Peretti, the company had over $300 million in revenues in 2018. Notably, $84 million of that was from Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Netflix, and yet, according to The New York Times, “the company still loses money.” Amid a decline in traffic, BuzzFeed is laying off hundreds of its news staff because, as Silverman told me, the profit is on the entertainment side.

As for BuzzFeed’s collaboration with Facebook, it is notable that the latter was just issued a $5 BILLION fine for breaches of privacy, which is why nobody should trust such platforms with any personal information.

When he inquired about The Patriot Post’s unusual model of accepting no advertising, Silverman said, “Refusing ads is a notable policy given that email lists are huge moneymakers … and The Patriot Post’s has been built up over more than 20 years.”

As for our principled reasoning for refusing advertising, I referred him to our About page, which explains, “Our website pages and emails are certified ‘Ad Free.’ Because we do not depend on a single penny of ad revenue, we focus solely on providing you content that is actually newsworthy — worthy of your time — rather than constantly churning the ubiquitous topics which now dominate the Leftmedia’s relentless 24/7 recycled spin.” Additionally, “We are not sustained by any political, special interest, or parent organization, and we do not accept advertising to ensure our advocacy and editorial content is not restrained by commercial influence — as is the case with all mass media outlets. Our website and email editions are free of advertising clutter.”

Silverman actually lamented that BuzzFeed’s model is built on churning news to bait “viral” clicks and ad views to generate revenue. I appreciated his candor. (I would note that, unlike BuzzFeed, our unconventional model has kept us operating in the black since our first year on the Web — a decade before the advent of BuzzFeed and its brand of entertainment media.)

Regarding Silverman’s inquiry, one of his followers asked a good question: “What was the point … to inform us a conservative news platform uses pseudonyms and doesn’t accept ad revenue? Okay … thanks for the info?”

GRYGIEL AND WARREN CELEBRATING ‘GAY’ MARRIAGE

To help answer that question, I asked Silverman who first brought The Patriot Post to his attention and why. He responded, “Professor Jennifer Grygiel” of Syracuse University, a leftist colleague who “tracks partisan media” and “teaches a course about BuzzFeed. … I previously spoke to her class.” He said he promised to give her a byline if he published a story about The Patriot Post.

So this inquiry did not originate at BuzzFeed. It started when a hard-left LGBT activist, an assistant professor of communications from upstate New York, who promotes herself as a social-media expert, fed Silverman the story. He says it was because of our social-media growth. But there are thousands of social media pages that are growing, so why is Grygiel so interested in The Patriot Post, and how many others has Silverman written about?

A few weeks ago, there was a complaint lodged against our Facebook page about a meme, which correctly asserted that there are only two genders. This resulted in a takedown and penalty from Facebook. Suspiciously, following that complaint, Grygiel contacted Silverman.

Grygiel, who prefers the pronoun pseudonym “they,” identifies her areas of expertise as social media, memes, media regulation, police media, social justice, LGBTQ youth advocacy, race, and gender, but her specific expertise appears to be how to get social-media outlets to restrict content that doesn’t comport with her political and social views.

In short, Grygiel and her ilk are forming the new front against the First Amendment.

When I asked Silverman if he was aware of her political views, he responded. “I don’t know Grygiel’s political views.” Given their collaborative history, that reply seemed somewhat less than candid.

To be fair, though, I also asked him what his impression of The Patriot Post was, and he responded, “I looked at recent issues of the digest and found them to be filled with interesting information and commentary. … So when it comes to your core product my personal opinion [is that] it seems to be of pretty high quality.”

He and Grygiel clearly did, however, find other Patriot Post viral memes offensive: “One meme mocking vegans,” they (by which I actually mean the two of them) reported, “generated more than 2.9 million shares, reactions, and comments, and another chiding Parkland, Florida, shooting survivor David Hogg attracted more than 2.1 million engagements.”

Anti-Vegan – Anti-Hogg TPP Humor

My response? The vegan meme was intended as humor, but most Leftists are humorless. And let me state emphatically, the assertion that Hogg is a “shooting survivor” does a disservice to actual survivors, like my friend and Patriot Post writer Roger Helle, who, as a Marine in Vietnam, survived being blown up, shot on two different occasions, and bayoneted — three Purple Hearts. He, not Hogg, is a real “survivor.”

When I asked about the motive for and objective of his collaboration with Grygiel, Silverman insisted “straightforwardly there is no intent to reduce your publication’s reach or undermine you.” Their next move will establish if that is true.

Another major point of contention in Silverman’s inquiry was our writers’ and editors’ use of pseudonyms, the “Publius” model from The Federalist Papers. This is another unconventional practice, like not taking advertising, which he simply could not grasp.

I explained that, since our inception, as noted on our About page, “As was the case with The Federalist (Papers) in 1787, the premier resource for understanding the Liberty and Rule of Law enshrined in our Republic’s Constitution, and from which we derive much of our constitutionally constructionist editorial inspiration, The Patriot Post is published under the pseudonym ‘Publius,’ and many of our editors and advisors are listed likewise.”

I noted that as we’ve grown over the years, I began offering new grassroots contributors the opportunity to choose a pseudonym or use their legal name. Some have chosen the latter.

Based on his fascination with pseudonyms, I asked Silverman if he’d written about how his publication’s CEO had set up fake websites under the names of real people in order to slander them, including one that attacked Second Amendment advocate John Lott (which Peretti admitted in a legal settlement, including his apology).

Silverman responded, “I’m not familiar with the examples … you cited and couldn’t comment on them without more research.”

(OK, let me make The Patriot Post research easy for the leftist inquisitors: We are actually a Russian front operated by Markovich Alexanderovich. We set up shop two decades before Trump announced his 2016 candidacy, so we could ensure he would defeat Hillary Clinton.)

Another point regarding our decision not to promote personalities… President Ronald Reagan, on his Oval Office desk, kept a small engraved plaque with the words, “There is no limit to what a man can do … if he does not mind who gets the credit.” That simple axiom defined how Reagan conducted his presidency: It was about the ideas, not about him.

That same plaque sits in front of my office computer today — where it reminds me, it’s about Liberty, not about us. That’s the “Publius” model, the Reagan principle, and our practice. But again, the MSM self-promoters can’t begin to fathom that principle.

Silverman also asked if I would put him in touch with some of the conservative leaders who provided favorable comments about The Patriot Post in years past. I contacted them, and predictably, nobody expressed an interest in talking with anyone associated with BuzzFeed.

However, the most widely known of those who offered praise for The Patriot, responded, “They are relentless and use Gestapo tactics.” But these speech-suppression methods are more akin to Stalinist tactics, which are also the inspiration for the “antifa movement” — the self-styled anti-fascists who are actually fascists.

The effort of leftists to silence Christians and conservatives, especially grassroots Patriots who promote Liberty, is relentless.

But as another notable stalwart advised me to tell our team, “We’re all in this together. Onward!” And onward we go.

There was a surfeit of other “misinformation” and “contextual omissions and errors” in the BuzzFeed inquiry.

Update: Regarding the Silverman/Grygiel article, as one might expect from tabloid media, they doxed the location of our humble storefront, despite the fact (or because) they knew that created risks to our staff and their families. (They have since removed that information from the article.) They doxed the names of my family members even though they knew there were no financial or material connections with The Patriot Post. (While we know who the Silverman and Grygiel families are, mentioning them would be far beneath our ethical standards.) They implied that we had misused two short quotes about The Patriot Post obtained 15 years ago, but they did not contact the individuals who were quoted. And they implied that our use of pseudonyms is nefarious, despite the fact I have always been easily identifiable through public media interviews, which ironically, is how Silverman knew who to contact. Likewise, the ownership of our company, Publius Press, Inc., has always been a matter of public record. Again, the “Publius principle” has never been about not revealing individuals, but about not promoting individuals.

Finally, about my original topic…

AF Master Sgt. Israel Del Toro & Marine Sgt Dakota Meyer

In stark contrast to Silverman, Grygiel, and their stripe, the evening their inquiries began to post across the Web, I was with friends and colleagues raising support for Honoring the Sacrifice, headed by my young friend Andrew Smith. Andrew also makes the wooden flags we sell to support OEF and OIF disabled vets.

Among other wounded veterans helping with this effort were former AF Master Sgt. Israel Del Toro, and Medal of Honor recipient and former Marine Dakota Meyer.

I commend for your consideration supporting Honoring the Sacrifice.

As always, we ask your prayers for the Lord’s blessing for the protection of and provision for our uniformed Patriots and veterans and their families.

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Pro Deo et Libertate — 1776

___________________________

*PUBLIUS*

The Patriot Post is protected speech, as enumerated in the First Amendment and enforced by the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, in accordance with the endowed and unalienable Rights of All Mankind.

SUPPORT The Patriot Post

The Coup, Phase Two: Taking Trump Down

On March 25 I posted the thought The Coup Attempt Will Continue. After the Mueller Report sunk Leftist-Dem dreams of enough fodder to impeach President Trump, I knew future impeachable fabrications were in store.

Today I discovered Mark Alexander’s similar yet more erudite thoughts concluding phase two is on the way. Here is the cross post originally from The Patriot Post.

JRH 3/27/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

********************

The Coup, Phase Two: Taking Trump Down

“Time to investigate the Obama officials who concocted and spread the Russian conspiracy hoax.”

By Mark Alexander

Mar. 27, 2019

Email Alert sent 3/27/2019 1:33 PM

The Patriot Post

“No compact among men … can be pronounced everlasting and inviolable, and if I may so express myself, that no Wall of words, that no mound of parchment can be so formed as to stand against the sweeping torrent of boundless ambition on the one side, aided by the sapping current of corrupted morals on the other.” —George Washington (1798)

Senator Graham- ‘Going To Get Answers’

The special counsel’s investigation of President Donald Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia to influence the 2016 election has concluded. Attorney General William Barr released to Congress his “principal conclusions” regarding Robert Mueller’s nearly two-year probe, noting most succinctly: “The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election.”

According to Barr, “The Special Counsel issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.” All that notwithstanding, Barr says Mueller “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”

In other words, the setup for this investigation was designed to derail Trump’s agenda and seek evidence that would lead to his impeachment. It has certainly been a distraction from his agenda. But while there is no evidence — zero evidence — of collusion regarding the 2016 election, Democrats did use the Mueller probe to influence the outcome of the 2018 midterm elections.

President Trump responded to the investigation’s conclusion, noting, “It was a false narrative. It was a terrible thing. We can never let this happen to another president again.” He added, “There are a lot of people out there that have done some very, very evil things. Very bad things. I would say treasonous things against our country. And hopefully the people that have done such harm to our country … those people will certainly be looked at.”

Regarding Russian interference, I’ve stated previously that Russia has been trying to influence the politics of the United States since 1917. And as noted above, the Russians did so with great success in 2018, with the unwitting collusion of the Democrat Party. The question this raises is whether Vladimir Putin baited the Demos into this inquiry, knowing it would hinder Trump’s agenda — most particularly his policy toward Russia and China. Is he that smart, or are they that dumb?

Seeding the Mueller investigation was Phase One of the Democrats’ attempted coup of Donald Trump. So where will they take it from here, and how will Republicans respond?

Before answering those questions, let’s briefly review the origins of and motives for the Mueller investigation.

A coup d’état in a democratic republic refers to an effort by a political faction to seize power in violation of a government’s constitutionally prescribed electoral process for party transition. I have previously covered such a coup by key government officials who colluded to, in effect, overthrow the Trump administration by setting Trump up for investigation and impeachment.

In short, the conspirators were Barack Obama (with whom the plan originated), Hillary Clinton and her DNC operatives, former FBI Director James Comey and his high-ranking co-conspirators, former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, former CIA Director John Brennan, who repeatedly asserted Trump was guilty, and a cast of less-corrupt characters.

Time For Real Witch Hunt to Begin (Crooked Hillary closeup)

There are two reliable and detailed open-source timelines on the government collusion against Trump. The first is the well-documented outline by Republican National Committee research. A second and more concise timeline was published by The Wall Street Journal.

So where to from here?

It appears that Republicans are going to go on the offensive.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham is reiterating his call for the appointment of another special counsel: “I’m going to get answers to this [government corruption]. I’d like to find somebody [who] can look into what happened with the [Carter Page] FISA warrants, [and] the counterintelligence investigation. … What makes no sense to me is that all of the abuse by the Department of Justice and the FBI, the unprofessional conduct, the shady behavior — nobody seems to think that’s [very] important. Well, that’s gonna change. … I hope Mr. Barr will appoint somebody outside the current system to look into these allegations, somebody we all trust, and let them do what Mueller did.”

Referring to the abuse of the FISA warrant process, Graham said, “Was it a ruse to get into the Trump campaign? I don’t know but I’m going to try to find out.”

Likewise, Sen. Rand Paul declared, “Time to investigate the Obama officials who concocted and spread the Russian conspiracy hoax! I’m very concerned that it’s becoming more clear that the Obama administration was able to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on our campaign based on phony opposition research from the Clinton campaign. Having federal law enforcement spy on a presidential campaign based on phony campaign research is really distressing and the true untold story.”

Wall Street Journal political analyst William McGurn is calling out Obama intelligence chiefs who set Trump up: “In light of Mr. Mueller’s findings, there are only two ways to interpret these actions and statements from senior members of the intelligence community. The first is that they got played because they were incompetent… But there’s something even worse than an intelligence community that has been played. It’s an intelligence community that chose to play along simply because its members hated Donald Trump.”

Political journalist Sharyl Attkisson concurs: “If [James] Clapper, Brennan, [Susan] Rice, [Samantha] Power, [and] Comey genuinely believed Trump ‘colluded’ with Russia and he didn’t, what does that say about the judgement of our one-time top intel types?”

Former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy concludes: “In sum, we have endured a two-year ordeal in which the president of the United States was forced to govern under a cloud of suspicion — suspicion of being a traitor, of scheming with a foreign adversary to steal an election. This happened because the Obama administration — which opened the probe of the Trump campaign, and which opted to use foreign counterintelligence spying powers rather than give Trump a defensive briefing about suspected Russian infiltration of his campaign — methodically forced its suspicions about Trump into the public domain.”

McCarthy is also calling the bluff of Trump’s Demo antagonists clamoring for the full Mueller report. “Let’s have full disclosure,” he says. “Mueller’s report in addition to the FISA applications; the memoranda pertinent to the opening and continuation of the investigation; the testimony in secret hearings; the scope memorandum Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein issued on August 2, 2017, after failing to cite a crime when he appointed Mueller — let’s have all of it.”

In addition to calls for another special prosecutor, we soon expect the second part of the report from Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz — the part regarding the FBI’s abuse of FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign, as well as the Clinton campaign’s collusion with those FBI officials. The first part of the Horowitz investigation concluded that Comey and assorted deep-state operatives provided cover for Clinton, using their offices to undermine Trump’s campaign.

As for the Democrats … it’s on to Phase Two.

Knowing full well that the Mueller report would be a dry well with no evidence to impeach Trump for colluding with the Russians, Democrats have been readying Phase Two of their charade — the assertion that Trump is impeachable for obstruction. This will be a heavy lift, since Mueller has now concluded that there was no crime. And why would Trump (or anyone else) attempt to obstruct an investigation into a crime that never took place?

Comey has an “answer” for that: “The notion that obstruction cases are somehow undermined by the absence of proof of an underlying crime — that is not my experience in 40 years of doing this, nor is it the Department of Justice’s tradition. Obstruction crimes matter without regard to what you prove about the underlying crime.”

Of course he’d say that — he’s got books to sell.

But Democrats don’t actually have to undertake impeachment proceedings to continue obstructing Trump’s agenda; they just have to keep the collusion delusion alive.

Rallying their reliable constituency of “true believer” dunces, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer declared: “Attorney General Barr’s letter raises as many questions as it answers. The fact that Special Counsel Mueller’s report does not exonerate the president on a charge as serious as obstruction of justice demonstrates how urgent it is that the full report and underlying documentation be made public without any further delay. … The American people have a right to know.”

Schumer-Pelosi– The Waxed Demo Duo

They then issued a “one week” ultimatum for release of the report by April 2nd, knowing it will take Barr several weeks to redact sections that reveal sources and methods. This is a set-up to assert that Barr is colluding with Trump to delay release in order to conceal evidence of obstruction. And, once released, all of the redacted sections about sources and methods will be fodder for the same collusion assertion.

In lockstep, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) parroted the Pelosi and Schumer complaint: “Your four-page summary of the Special Counsel’s review is not sufficient for Congress, as a coequal branch of government, to perform [its] critical work. The release of the full report and the underlying evidence and documents is urgently needed by our committees to perform their duties under the Constitution.”

They are also demanding that Barr testify before their committees: “We must hear from AG Barr about his decision-making and see all the underlying evidence for the American people to know all the facts.”

Of course, all this newfound Democrat concern that “the American people have a right to know” and about “duties under the Constitution” warrants endless eye rolls.

Nadler insists: “President Trump is wrong. This report does not amount to a so-called total exoneration. … There must be full transparency in what Special Counsel Mueller uncovered to not exonerate the president from wrongdoing. DOJ owes the public more than just a brief synopsis and decision not to go any further in their work.”

Recall that Nadler concluded, “It’s clear that the campaign colluded, and there’s a lot of evidence of that.”

Schiff insisted, “The Russians offered help, the campaign accepted help, the Russians gave help, and the president made full use of that help, and that is pretty damning.” He concluded there was a cover-up “of a size and scope probably beyond Watergate.”

My friend Rep. Mark Green (R-TN) is calling for Schiff to step down as House intel chairman: “Many, many times he mentioned that there was this credible evidence that he had seen and that he had verified, and after a two-year, lengthy investigation by a very respected prosecutor, we have no evidence of collusion. In fact, the only evidence of collusion has been between the liberal media and the DNC to throw the 2020 election.”

Watch Nadler and Schiff turn on Mueller, as they will on Barr.

Over in the Senate, Richard “Stolen Valor” Blumenthal (D-CT) led the charge: “The evidence is pretty clear that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.” Days ahead of the Mueller report, he asserted, “There are indictments in this president’s future. They’re coming.”

The Senate 2020 Demo presidential candidates also got the Pelosi/Schumer memo, all echoing similar accusations of guilt — much the same assumption of guilt members like Kamala Harris and Cory Booker applied in their effort to defeat Brett Kavanaugh.

And predictably, a freshman Democrat, Rep. Katie Hill (D-CA), who was among the 2018 herd that was elected on the collusion lie, insists, “We have the evidence over the last two years that the Mueller investigation was not covering that is highly, highly suspicious.” I can’t wait to hear all about it!

All this, of course, amounts to a continuation of the Democrats’ “Hate Trump” platform. They have nothing else to offer beyond their insistence that Trump stole the 2016 election, that he’s an illegitimate president, and that our nation’s very survival hinges on their retaking the White House in 2020.

But will Democrats outside the Beltway develop chronic collusion fatigue? Apparently some Demos are concerned about that.

Signaling a partial pivot from collusion to the so-called “Affordable Care Act,” Pelosi says the House will return to the health-care debate. “We’ve never taken our focus off the ‘For the People’ agenda,” she declared. “Never,” except for always. House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) actually dismissed Mueller: “I believe that the Mueller report has been done. It’s a chapter that’s closed. This administration opened a new chapter when it moved to completely invalidate the Affordable Care Act.”

Beyond the Demo damage, the best collateral damage to come out of the Mueller report is that of the Leftmedia propagandists, who’ve taken a huge hit for their brazenly biased reporting during this whole affair. As The Hill notes, “The breathless coverage amplified the sense that Trump and some of his family members would go down for crimes, yet in the end, Mueller reported that he found no evidence of a conspiracy.”

The Wall Street Journal called it “A Catastrophic Media Failure,” noting, “America’s blue-chip journalists botched the entire story, from its birth during the presidential campaign to its final breath Sunday — and they never stopped congratulating themselves for it.”

As National Review’s Rich Lowry correctly notes: “The 3 biggest losers from the Mueller report in order — the media, the media, the media.”

Left Stream Media Pundits

Since May of 2017, The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, and MSNBC posted a combined 8,507 articles and reports citing Mueller’s investigation. That’s an average of about 13 articles every day.

Recall that the Times and WaPo shared the 2018 Pulitzer Prize for “award winning” journalism, specifically “for deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration.”

The Pulitzer Prize long ago lost its luster, however, just as has the Nobel Peace Prize. Both of these once-esteemed awards are now grossly tarnished partisan trophies for leftist political hacks.

Of the Leftmedia cable talkinghead platforms, the most aggressively biased has been CNN. It repeatedly trotted out “experts” like Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein, who said with great authority, “We do know that Donald Trump Sr. has lied throughout the investigation, that many, many things he has said turn out to be untrue.”

Except he didn’t.

After the Mueller report dropped (and CNN’s viewership with it), Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani confronted CNN’s Chris Cuomo about his network’s bias: “You guys on this network have tortured this man for two years with collusion and nobody has apologized for it. Before we talk about obstruction, apologize for the overreaction of collusion… I’m outraged by the behavior of these networks. Collusion, collusion, collusion, collusion, collusion, collusion. No collusion, Chris. No collusion. Apologize!”

Good luck with that, Rudy.

Leftist Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz also called out CNN: “I have been right from day one… It’s time for them to fess up. It’s time for CNN to issue an apology. CNN banned me from their air because I was being too fair. I was trying to assess what the essential issue was, and I wasn’t being partisan. They didn’t want that.”

Good luck with that, Alan.

According to revered journalist Brit Hume: “We in this business need to look back and say how in the world did several major news organs, networks, newspapers and so on, devote so much time to what turned out to be utterly baseless speculation about the most serious crime you can imagine, mounting in some cases in the accusations we heard in some conversations to treason? It is the worst journalistic debacle in my lifetime. I’ve been in this business for about 50 years. I’ve never seen anything quite this bad last this long. It was a terrible thing. It needs to be investigated. There needs to be a lot of soul-searching among many members of the media today and going forward.”

I couldn’t agree more. But it won’t happen.

As to how a handful of high-ranking government officials, the Democrats in Congress, and the Leftmedia were able to perpetuate this bald-faced collusion lie for the past two years: All Americans of every political stripe should be gravely concerned about what happened here. And, as President Trump said, “We can never let this happen to another president again.”

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Pro Deo et Libertate — 1776

_____________________

Our Mission

The Patriot Post is steadfast in our mission to extend the endowment of Liberty to the next generation by advocating for individual rights and responsibilities, supporting the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and promoting free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. We are a rock-solid conservative touchstone for the expanding ranks of grassroots Americans Patriots from all walks of life. We are not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we do not accept advertising to ensure our advocacy is not restrained by commercial influence. Our mission and operation budgets are funded entirely by the contributions from Patriots like you. Please support The Patriot Fund today!

National Security Debates on the Border and Beyond

Mark Alexander

Mark Alexander tackles the Trump vs. Dem on Border Security: The Wall, Dem hypocrisy over the Wall and government shutdown. ALSO, he takes a relatively brief look at plus and minus of troop withdrawal from Syria.

JRH 1/3/18

Please Support NCCR

******************

National Security Debates on the Border and Beyond

Two national security issues are casting a long shadow over 2019.

By Mark Alexander

January 2, 2019

The Patriot Post

“The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations and Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.” —George Washington

Ronil Singh, wife & baby

Sometimes, the first column of the year is an easy one — just a few reflections about the year past and the year to come.

Unfortunately, the last week of 2018 was marred by a couple of political confrontations that are casting a long shadow over the new year. Most notable among those issues are two significant national security issues.

The first of these is a rather straightforward interruption of some “non-essential government bureaucracies” beginning on 22 December, which President Donald Trump implemented after Democrats failed to provide sufficient federal funding to secure our border with Mexico.

The second is a policy shift in the Middle East — much more a chess move than the mainstream media’s typical portrayal of this policy change as a game of checkers.

Regarding the border security/shutdown showdown

I have covered in detail how all Democrat Party leaders, including incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-NY) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), have repeatedly advocated for border security and strong immigration laws — until it was no longer politically expedient to do so. Democrats oppose securing our southern border for two reasons: first, because Trump supports it, and second, because these illegal immigrants and their progeny represent the Democrat Party’s most promising and powerful source of new votes.

Demos, therefore, don’t want “immigration solutions.” They want to appease their Hispanic constituents with smoke-and-mirror political rhetoric. In addition, they are using immigration as diversionary fodder to undermine the Trump administration’s considerable economic policy success.

Thus, by advocating for open borders, Democrats hope to create a socialist-voter pipeline by flooding our nation with illegal immigrants who are likely to require long-term, taxpayer-funded government assistance.

However, an unforeseen problem with this strategy is that a growing number of Latinos and Hispanics in our country now, legal and illegal, don’t want the job and wage competition from more illegals flooding in from Mexico and Central America. Democrats say they support a “living wage” but then advocate, in effect, an open border, which ensures that millions of working men and women will never break free of the minimum wage.

The Democrats’ refusal to secure our border with Mexico, and their so-called “sanctuary city” agenda, has, over the years, invited millions of illegal immigrants to invade our southern border, many of them using children as human bargaining chips in order to stay in the U.S. Some are seeking economic welfare, while others pose a significant threat to our citizens.

Three recent and tragic deaths should constitute a low benchmark in the never-ending border-security debate.

In late December, there were two deaths of immigrant children in Border Patrol custody. The first was an eight-year-old boy whose Guatemalan mother declared, according to press reports, that the boy’s father brought the sick child with him “because they figured he’d have an easier chance of gaming the American immigration system to gain an illegal foothold here.” His sister said, “We heard rumors that they could pass [into the United States]. They said they could pass with the children.” Another Guatemalan child, a seven-year-old girl who was sick when she and her father were apprehended by the Border Patrol, also died.

President Trump noted correctly, “Deaths of children or others at the Border are strictly the fault of the Democrat … immigration policies that [encourage] people to make the long trek thinking they can enter our country illegally. … The two children in question were very sick before they were given over to the Border Patrol. The father of the young girl said it was not their fault, he hadn’t given her water in days. The Border Patrol needs the Wall and it will all end. They are working so hard and getting so little credit.”

But there was another death in December, also the direct result of Democrat inaction on border security, that should be a rallying point for all Americans.

The day after Christmas, Newman, California, police officer Ronil Singh, himself a legal immigrant from Fiji, was murdered by an illegal immigrant. Arrested for that murder was Gustavo Arriaga, a Mexican national with reported ties to the violent Surenos gang and previous arrests that should have resulted in his deportation.

Tragically, California’s incomprehensible “sanctuary” restrictions prevented his arrest from being reported to immigration officials. In other words, Democrats opened the door for Officer Singh’s murderer to enter our country, and Democrat policies prevented him from being rightly deported. Seven other illegal immigrants have been arrested in connection with Singh’s murder. (A week earlier, another illegal immigrant in California murdered two people in a crime spree.)

Singh’s brother Reggie expressed his family’s grief and his gratitude for the apprehension of the assailant: “I’d like to thank you from the bottom of my heart. … I wish I could thank all of the law-enforcement agencies, Homeland Security in San Francisco, everyone.”

Stanislaus County Sheriff Adam Christianson, whose agency led the investigation into Officer Singh’s murder, issued this condemnation of the California laws that allowed for this cold-blooded murder: “While we absolutely need to stay focused on Officer Singh’s service and sacrifice, we can’t ignore the fact that this could’ve been prevented. … This is a criminal illegal alien with prior criminal activity that should have been reported to ICE. We were prohibited — law enforcement was prohibited because of sanctuary laws, and that led to the [murder of Cpl.] Singh. … This is not how you protect a community.”

This murder by a violent illegal immigrant — and countless others before it and to come — demands an answer to the following question: “Sanctuary for whom?”

On these senseless murders, Don Rosenberg, whose son Drew was killed by an illegal alien, said, “We relive what happened to our loved ones. It’s just another stab in the back, particularly in California by our government that doesn’t give a damn about our families. They don’t care about us. They don’t care that their policies and their laws are killing people.”

Officer Singh now joins a tragic and ever-growing list of Americans murdered by illegal immigrants, including Kate Steinle, Jamiel Shaw, and Mollie Tibbetts, as well as countless others whose violent deaths apparently didn’t warrant widespread media coverage. (Two days after Singh’s murder, in nearby Knoxville, Tennessee, an illegal immigrant was arrested for the criminally negligent homicide of a 22-year-old local resident.)

We extend our prayers for officer Singh’s family and for all law-enforcement personnel who man that wall 24/7, providing protection for their fellow citizens.

Responding to the latest instances of violence and the epidemic issues of drug- and sex-trafficking of minors across our southern border, President Trump, who has already deployed military personnel to assist with border security, declared that inaction on securing our border with Mexico will result in shutting it down entirely: “We will be forced to close the Southern Border entirely if the Democrats do not give us the money to finish the Wall and also change the ridiculous immigration laws that our Country is saddled with.”

Trump quote on Illegal Immigration Embarrassment

Regarding the enormous financial cost of illegal immigration, Trump noted, “It’s a national embarrassment that an illegal immigrant can walk across the border and receive free health care and one of our Veterans that has served our country is put on a waiting list and gets no care.” Indeed it is.

The taxpayer burden of illegal immigration is conservatively estimated at $155 billion per year — versus a one-time expense of $7-$9 billion for Trump’s border barrier.

For the record, Congress has already authorized redistributing $10.6 billion in taxpayer funds to Mexico for its own southern border security.

But on own southern border, Homeland Security spokeswoman Katie Waldman Tuesday, “Once again we have had a violent mob of migrants attempt to enter the United States illegally by attacking our agents with projectiles. The agents involved should be applauded for handling the situation with no reported injuries to the attackers.”

Regarding the so-called “shutdown showdown”

President Trump has already signed legislation approving $900 billion of $1.2 trillion for federal agency operating expenses, but the partial shutdown is having a significant impact on 800,000 people on the federal payroll.

The interruption of “non-essential government services” and furlough of 380,000 government employees could be viewed as “paid vacation,” as Congress has always restored back pay retroactively. However, many of those affected live on tight margins, and missing paychecks means potentially missing loan and mortgage payments and other bills. They will begin feeling the pinch in January, but taxpayers, who are footing the bill, are already bearing the shutdown burden. The same is true of the 420,000 essential government employees who remain on the job, most in security positions, who will not receive pay starting in January, but are guaranteed their back pay. Those employed by government contractors will not see their back pay restored.

How did we get here?

In short, President Trump requested $5 billion in additional border-security funding in order to begin construction of barriers along our southern border with Mexico. Before recess, in one of the last actions of the Republican-controlled House before Democrats take over this week, lawmakers passed a bill approving $5.7 billion in additional funding. But that bill was dead on arrival in the Senate, which only agreed to $1.3 billion for border security, and none of that for a border barrier.

When Senate Democrats denied additional border-barrier funding, including a $2.5 billion compromise offer from Vice President Mike Pence, Trump ordered the partial shutdown. For how long? According to the president, “I can’t tell you when the government is going to reopen. … [Not until] we have a wall, a fence, whatever they’d like to call it. I’ll call it whatever they want. But it’s all the same thing. It’s a barrier from people pouring into our country.”

Trump drew attention to the necessity of security walls by mentioning one in particular: “President and Mrs. Obama built a 10-foot Wall around their D.C. mansion/compound. I agree, totally necessary for their safety and security. The US needs slightly larger version!”

Dem Homes Walled Hypocrisy

The consummate dealmaker, Trump is looking for some concession from Democrats by using Obama’s illegal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) deceit as a bargaining chip, but he may not get one. Notably, he has also issued an executive order putting a hold on pay increases for all non-military government employees — another bargaining chip.

Meanwhile, Pelosi’s Democrats are weighing their options for a rebuttal when they return this week. They intend to pass a package of Senate spending bills to reopen the government — in an attempt to shift blame for the shutdown to Republicans.

Of course Trump will not approve that ploy, as noted by Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders: “Pelosi released a plan that will not re-open the government because it fails to secure the border and puts the needs of other countries above the needs of our own citizens. The Pelosi plan is a non-starter because it does not fund our homeland security or keep American families safe from human trafficking, drugs, and crime.”

The president has called key members of Congress to the White House today for negotiations. But the biggest obstacle to border security is, as Trump noted, this: “The Democrats don’t want to let us have strong borders, only for one reason. You know why? Because I want it.”

Regarding our military presence in Syria and Middle East policy

Whether in domestic or foreign policy matters, Trump has shown a penchant for strategic unpredictability that inevitably comes with varying degrees of perceived instability — which he happens to thrive on.

In 2016, Trump laid out his priorities for defeating the resurgent Islamic State, along with his policy objective in Syria: “What we should do is focus on ISIS. We should not be focusing on Syria. You’re going to end up in world war three over Syria if we listen to Hillary Clinton. You’re not fighting Syria any more, you’re fighting Syria, Russia and Iran, all right?” He added that dealing with Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad was “secondary … to [ISIS].”

A week before Christmas, the White House announced President Trump’s “slow and highly coordinated pullout of U.S. troops” from Syria. According to Trump, “We have won against ISIS … Our young women, our men, they’re all coming back and they’re coming back now. We won.”

Trump elaborated, “American and coalition forces have had one military victory after another over the last two years against ISIS, including the retaking of both Mosul in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria. We’ve liberated more than 20,000 square miles of territory … and liberated more than 3 million civilians from ISIS’s bloodthirsty control … I made it clear from the beginning that our mission in Syria was to strip ISIS of its military strongholds; we’re not nation building. … Our presence in Syria was not open-ended, and it was never intended to be permanent. The men and women who serve are entitled to clear objectives, and the confidence that when those objectives are met they can come home and be with their families. Our objective in Syria was always to retake the territory controlled by ISIS. Now that we have done so, the nations of the region must step up and take more responsibility for their future.”

He concluded, “There will be a strong, deliberate, and orderly withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria — very deliberate, very orderly — while maintaining the U.S. presence in Iraq to prevent an ISIS resurgence and to protect U.S. interests, and also to always watch very closely over any potential reformation of ISIS and also to watch over Iran.”

Notably, he reiterated: “I never said that I’m gonna rush out. … ISIS was all over the place when I took over. It was a total mess in Syria. We’ve almost eradicated all of them. We think all of them will be gone by the time we get out.”

Clearly, containing Iranian and Russian influence in Syria is important, but not the job of the U.S. military. Trump is, in effect, telling Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt and Israel, this is their task – that we will provide weapons and aid, but not boots on the ground. The intended net effect of this policy is to strengthen the alliances between Arabs and Jews in the region, who all have an interest in preventing the expansion of Iran’s Islamist influence.

Predictably, criticism of Trump’s decision came in droves from both sides of the aisle. Perhaps the most controversial of the president’s assertions was “We won,” leaving many to ask what, exactly, did we win? Amidst the flood of opinion still pouring in from critics and supporters alike, what follows are the most valid pros and cons of the Syria departure.

Orderly Withdrawal of U.S. Forces

Supporting the departure:

Troops in Syria, an Obama-era decision, were never congressionally authorized, so the departure is a win for the Constitution. National Review analysts Andrew McCarthy and David French, who otherwise have a difference of opinion on the Syria withdrawal, both agree that the Iraq/Afghanistan Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) did not extend to Syria. French notes, “President Obama should have gone to Congress and sought the necessary authorization to respond.” Likewise, McCarthy declared: “[If] you want to fight that enemy in an elective war, the Constitution demands that the people give their consent through their representatives in Congress.”

We’ll continue to monitor Syria and deny it as a safe haven for terrorism, according to President Trump. One of the foremost critics of the decision to leave Syria was initially Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). However, Graham reversed course after meeting with the president, stating: “[I] feel a lot better about where we’re headed in Syria.” He noted that Trump remains stalwart in his commitment to preventing Syria from being a safe haven for terrorist cells, saying, “He promised to destroy ISIS. He’s going to keep that promise. We’re not there yet, but as I said today, we’re inside the 10-yard line and the president understands the need to finish the job.”

To Be Determined? If Trump has taught us anything over the last two years, it’s that there’s always a bigger plan in play than what he and the ardently anti-Trump media reveal. Time and again, we’ve seen his decisions turn out better than expected. So we’re going to leave this last “pro” space open — there’s something else at play here that has yet to become clear, and we trust that it’s in our nation’s best interest. Again, Trump is playing chess while the media sees only checkers.

Against the departure:

The U.S. will be less equipped to counteract its strategic enemies. The conflict in Syria is deeply complex, but of the numerous parties invested in the outcome — Syria, Iran, Russia, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, the Kurds, and the U.S., to name a few — our ability to influence outcomes in the region may be weakened as a result of Trump’s decision to depart. Policy analyst Colin Dueck notes: “A sudden and unexpected drawdown of U.S. forces can only reduce America’s leverage against a range of adversaries and competitors including ISIS and the Taliban.” Though we retain the ability to influence the outcome through political and economic means, we are less equipped to influence change without troops on the deck.

Our allies will be less secure as a result, as will our myriad interests in the outcome of the conflict. Even with a reported footprint of only 2,000 troops (assuredly, some of our presence in the region is undisclosed or classified), our presence in Syria helped to assure safety and security to our regional allies by checking our enemies. As The Jerusalem Post’s Caroline Glick writes: “Despite their relatively small numbers, the U.S. forces in Syria have had a massive strategic impact on the power balance in the country. Deployed along the border triangle joining Syria, Iraq and Jordan, the U.S. forces in Syria have blocked Iran taking over the Iraqi-Syria border and so forging a land bridge linking Iran to the Mediterranean through Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.” Now, in our absence, Israel and Jordan will have to become better equipped to prevent the flow of logistics, personnel, and ideology from Tehran to Beirut, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.

There was speculation about Defense Secretary James Mattis’s resignation before the Syrian shift, but he certainly signaled his disagreement with Trump’s decision. As David French wrote, “Our nation has lost its foremost warrior in protest [of the decision].” Although Trump will surely identify a capable defense secretary to follow in “Mad Dog’s” footsteps, his departure struck a blow to the perceived stability of our military policy. Mattis was the member of Trump’s National Security Council with the most familiarity with military policy in the Middle East, beginning with his command of Task Force 58 during Operation Enduring Freedom, the invasion of Afghanistan after the 9/11 Islamist attack.

The departure of Mattis will also have a significant impact on the morale and well-being of our men and women in uniform, who rightly held him in high regard.

It should be noted that Gen. Mattis also disagreed with President Trump on other important matters of policy: walking away from the Obama administration’s Paris climate agreement and tearing up its Iran nuke deal; moving our nation’s embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem; engaging with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un; banning certain “transgender” individuals from U.S. military service; and using U.S. troops to defend our southern border.

In summary, our military analyst, Lee Crockett, concludes that Syria, Iran, and Afghanistan constitute a complex tapestry of international politics and warfare.

According to Crocket: “The Syria conflict is incredibly complicated, and it is a microcosm of the geopolitical conflict between Iran, China, Russia, and the West. One possible outcome could be that the unification of both parties against the pullout could result in a congressionally approved AUMF for any further involvement in Syria. But if history has taught us anything about prolonged wars (see Vietnam, 1964-1973, and Afghanistan, 2001-present) it is that simply pulling chocks and bringing the troops home has resulted in America failing to accomplish its desired ends.

“In 1964, we sought to prevent communism from bleeding into South Vietnam and beyond. Two administrations and three presidential terms later, our national resolve on the importance of South Vietnam faltered, and we abandoned South Vietnam to a communist takeover in 1975. We entered Afghanistan in 2001 to erode the nation’s status as a safe haven for terrorism. Two administrations and three presidential terms later in 2013, our national resolve on the importance of Afghanistan to our national security faltered, and we abandoned Afghanistan to the resurgence of the Taliban and Islamism.

“President Trump wisely returned to Afghanistan in force in 2017, though we returned to a nation that was not only war-torn but also being overrun again by the Islamist Taliban. In 2014, we entered Syria (unconstitutionally though it was) to counteract the Islamic State and prevent the region from harboring terrorist cells. Now that President Trump has decided to depart, have we truly accomplished our initial objective, or will the Syrian departure result in a regional failure to secure our national interests — suffering the same fate as Vietnam and Afghanistan at our allies’ expense?”

The criticism of Trump’s unfolding military strategy in Syria was punctuated by a surprise Christmas visit by the president and first lady to Al Asad Air Base in Iraq.

To the resounding cheers of military personnel, Trump asserted: “Our faith and confidence in you is absolute and total. … You are the warriors who defend our freedom. You are the patriots who ensure the flame of liberty burns forever bright. That’s who you are. … To everyone at Al Asad Air Base, and every American serving overseas, may God bless you, may God protect you, and may God always keep you safe. We love you. We support you. We salute you. We cherish you. And together, we pray for justice, goodness, and peace on Earth.”

On that, we can all agree. Above all the political rancor, I ask you to join us in daily prayer for God’s blessing upon our nation, especially for the protection of and provision for our uniformed Patriots and their families, and wisdom for our nation’s leaders.

Note: Thank you to all who supported The Patriot Fund’s 2018 Year-End Campaign — we will provide an update on Thursday. This campaign accounts for almost 50% of our annual operating revenue and sustains our publication from November to April.

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Pro Deo et Libertate — 1776

__________________

The Patriot Post Mission

The Patriot Post is steadfast in our mission to extend the endowment of Liberty to the next generation by advocating for individual rights and responsibilities, supporting the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and promoting free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. We are a rock-solid conservative touchstone for the expanding ranks of grassroots Americans Patriots from all walks of life. We are not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we do not accept advertising to ensure our advocacy is not restrained by commercial influence. Our mission and operation budgets are funded entirely by the contributions from Patriots like you. Please support The Patriot Fund today!

About The Patriot Post

Woodward’s ‘Blue Wave’ Launch Pad: Fear Crazy Trump!

Mark Alexander evaluates Bob Woodward’s new book ironically released on 9/11, “Fear: Trump in the White House”.

Alexander finds it interesting that Woodward’s book and the New York Times article by the infamous and probably treasonous Anonymous have many similar talking points. Both the Woodward book and the NYT article have been denounced as lies by those accused of saying or participating in chaos in the Trump Administration.

And now, the Alexander evaluation.

JRH 9/12/18

In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks for enjoying (or despising) this Blog.

Please Support NCCR

*************************

Woodward’s ‘Blue Wave’ Launch Pad: Fear Crazy Trump!

Woodward-Trump — Left’s ‘Crazy Trump’ Fear Smear

By Mark Alexander

Sep. 12, 2018

The Patriot Post

“[Trump] is doing what he campaigned on. Some policies may not work out, but they’re not ‘crazy.'” —Brit Hume

“Without Freedom of Thought there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as Public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech.” —Benjamin Franklin (1722)

The prospect of any factual wrongdoing associated with the Democrat Party’s fabricated “Trump/Putin collusion” conspiracy, along with the hope for some tangential shred of indictable evidence sufficient to take down Donald Trump, continues to fade.

Since Democrats can’t run against peace and prosperity in the upcoming midterm elections, they’re launching yet another divide-and-conquer strategy to help defeat Republicans in the Senate and House — hoping to divert voter attention from the considerable Trump administration successes.

Thus, the Demo-gogues, in collusion with their Leftmedia propagandists who have aptly demonstrated their editorial disdain for Trump (to put it kindly), are promoting a new theme: “Fear Crazy Trump — Vote Democrat.” It’s a perfect fit, given that the delusional decompensation among Demo constituents is growing louder and more desperate every day.

Prepping for their “Crazy Trump” campaign, the first installment came last week, free of charge, compliments of The New York Times editorial page. The Times ran an “anonymous op-ed letter” from a “senior official in the Trump administration.” If we assume that “Anonymous” is in fact “senior,” a label that could loosely be applied to more than 1,500 people with White House credentials, then there’s a dishonorable deep-state mole.

Anonymous writes that he/she/it singlehandedly protected the nation from Trump’s “misguided impulses,” because our duly elected president is “not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.” He/she/it even claims to have “preserved our democratic institutions” by removing documents from Trump’s desk before he could sign them.

But it can be fairly assumed that this inane, unsigned letter was all about setting the stage for a “Fear Crazy Trump” blockbuster book that was released this week.

Ever since the Demos successfully forced Richard M. Nixon’s resignation after the Watergate cover-up 45 years ago, they have sought a sequel. Enter Bob Woodward, the once-respected Washington Post reporter who, with Carl Bernstein, broke the Watergate story.

Woodward was once a reputable journalist, but his credibility is long past its expiration date. He keeps bobbing to the surface periodically, promising a catch, and his latest and likely last entry into presidential politics debuted this week: Fear: Trump in the White House.

The book was released Tuesday, on the 17th anniversary of the 9/11 Islamist attack. (Apparently, Woodward and his publisher were banking that there would be no competing scandal coverage on that solemn day.) “Fear is the most intimate portrait of a sitting president ever published during the president’s first years in office,” say the breathless folks at Simon and Schuster.

The Washington Post, which does the bidding of leftist mega-billionaire Jeff Bezos, a charter member of the “Archenemies of Liberty Club,” predictably offered accolades for the book. Of course, Woodward is still on Bezos’s WaPo payroll as an “associate editor.”

According to the Post, “A central theme of the book is the stealthy machinations used by those in Trump’s inner sanctum to try to control his impulses and prevent disasters. … Woodward describes ‘an administrative coup d’etat’ and a ‘nervous breakdown’ of the executive branch, with senior aides conspiring to pluck official papers from the president’s desk so he couldn’t see or sign them.”

That’s right, protecting the nation from Trump’s “impulses” by plucking papers from his desk before he can sign them — precisely the claim made in the anonymous NYT letter. Could there be a connection? (That was a rhetorical question.)

Fear Bk JK

In an effort to distance himself from the anonymous Times letter, Woodward laughably criticized The Gray Lady, insisting that if he were a New York Times editor, he wouldn’t have published an anonymous letter. “I wouldn’t have used it. Too vague and does not meet the standards of trying to describe specific incidents. Specific incidents are the building blocks of journalism.”

That’s true, except those are precisely the “building blocks” absent from Woodward’s book on Trump.

Criticizing the Times was a supreme example of hypocrisy and arrogance, as if Woodward believes we should all fall under his “Trust Bob” spell regardless of the fact that his standards are no better than the rest of the Leftmedia hacks.

But such criticism is typical of Woodward, who for the last two decades has arrogantly promoted himself as a god above mere mass media mortals and talkingheads. For example, in March of this year, he was questioned about the Trump presidency as a “test” for the MSM. He was asked specifically, “Do you think the media is failing the test?”

Woodward responded: “Reporters have at times become emotionally unhinged. … In lots of reporting, particularly on television [and in] commentary, there’s kind of a self-righteousness and smugness, and people kind of ridiculing the president. When we reported on Nixon, it was obviously a very different era, but we did not adopt a tone of ridicule. The tone was, ‘What are the facts?’”

Under Ben Bradlee, WaPo editor at the time Woodward and Bernstein unearthed the Watergate cover-up, the standards for journalism there were very different. Back then, Woodward would’ve been expected to focus on facts — and fired if he’d wrapped them in ridicule. But the Post dropped that journalistic standard when Bezos took over.

And today, Woodward is the grand master of “self-righteousness and smugness.”

Before Woodward’s “Crazy Trump” narrative was released, there were already six high-level denials from very “senior” Trump administration officials, by name. Among them are White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, who offered this assessment of Woodward’s book: “[It] is total BS. … This is another pathetic attempt to smear people close to President Trump and distract from the administration’s many successes.”

Defense Secretary James Mattis responded to Woodward on the record: “The contemptuous words about the President attributed to me in Woodward’s book were never uttered by me or in my presence. While I generally enjoy reading fiction, this is a uniquely Washington brand of literature, and his anonymous sources do not lend credibility. … In serving in this administration, the idea that I would show contempt for the elected Commander-in-Chief, President Trump, or tolerate disrespect to the office of the President from within our Department of Defense, is a product of someone’s rich imagination.”

Here’s White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders: “People have come forward to say that Woodward never reached out to corroborate statements that were attributed to them, which seems incredibly reckless … to not … get a $10 fact-checker to call around and find out if half of these quotes were accurate.”

For his part, President Trump declared, “It’s just another bad book. He’s had a lot of credibility problems. It’s just nasty stuff. I never spoke to him. Maybe I wasn’t given messages that he called.”

Of course, Woodward and his Leftmedia promoters dismiss the president’s comments. But prior to Woodward’s anti-Trump hit piece and its adoption as a launchpad for the Demos’ midterm “blue wave,” Woodward had been the object of a lot of Leftmedia criticism for lack of evidence and sources, especially when he stepped off the Leftmedia reservation and dared criticize Hillary Clinton.

In August of 2015, for example, Woodward exercised his once-famous journalistic reputation in evaluating Clinton’s infamously illegal communication subterfuge. He declared, “[This] reminds me of the Nixon tapes: Thousands of hours of secretly recorded conversations that Nixon thought were exclusively his. … 60,000 emails and Hillary Clinton has said 30,000 of them, half, were personal and they were deleted. Who decided that? What’s in those emails? … The big question about Clinton is, who is she? … The answers are probably not going to be pretty.”

Needless to say, that assessment didn’t get a lot of press coverage.

Leftist literary journalist Joan Didion says of Woodward’s writing, “Measurable cerebral activity is virtually absent.” Furthermore, he “covers the story not as it is occurring but as it is presented, which is to say as it is manufactured.”

There are also scholarly critics of the content of his books, from his “Deep Throat” character in his bestselling All the President’s Men, to Veil, in which he stands accused of fabricating a key deathbed confession by former CIA Director William Casey.

But wait. There’s more.

Jonathan Chait in New York magazine: “What the hell happened to Bob Woodward? … As an analyst, Woodward is a particular kind of awful.”

Charles Pierce in Esquire: “The full depth of Bob Woodward’s plunge into sheer hackery.”

Arianna Huffington in HuffPost: “He’s the dumb blonde of American journalism.”

Jeffrey St. Clair in CounterPunch: “Woodward, despite filing one dubious story after another, retains his position as an éminence grise of DC reporters.”

Noam Scheiber in New Republic: “It is relentlessly biased against the president.”

Max Holland in Newsweek: “Woodward is the same now as he ever was. His misrepresentation … is only the latest in a long string of questionable journalistic episodes. … It reveals a grotesquely swollen ego fed by 40 years of hero worship.”

Even Ben Bradlee, Woodward’s Washington Post editor at the time of Watergate, suspected he fabricated elements in All the President’s Men.

So, what to make of the “Crazy Trump” fear-mongering by Woodward and his renewed Leftmedia sycophantry?

Brit Hume, an even-keeled political observer, offered this assessment: “The problem is of course … [Woodward] doesn’t disclose his sources, he doesn’t annotate his books, [and] he doesn’t give you a sense of who the people are with whom he spoke. … A tremendous amount of Woodward’s reports are never verified. … It leaves us in a poor position to evaluate the work. … What I would like to see … is a connection between these [claimed] outbursts of the president and real policies and actions on his part that match their claims about how reckless he is. I haven’t seen that. … He’s doing what he campaigned on. Some policies may not work out, but they’re not ‘crazy.’”

Fact is, a broad swath of American voters disgracefully characterized by Hillary Clinton as “deplorables” elected Donald Trump to accomplish three things with his “MAGA” platform:

Drop a metaphorical bomb on Washington, including status quo politicos in both parties, special interests, regulatory and bureaucratic behemoths, failed trade- and national-security policies, and all the pundits and mainstream media outlets. He’s done that and continues to do so.

Put our economy on the right track. He did that and continues to do so.

Reestablish a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. He has done that and will continue to do so if Republicans hold the Senate.

So shocked was the Left after Clinton’s defeat that all of Trump’s actions are viewed by deranged leftists as “crazy.”

Will the Woodward/Demo-Leftmedia “Crazy Trump” strategy work? Can Democrats generate enough noise to energize the leftist base for a successful run on congressional control?

The midterm elections for control of the House and Senate will be very close.

But what America should fear most is the power the Leftmedia exercises over public opinion, and thus, control of the future of Liberty.

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Pro Deo et Libertate — 1776

________________________

The Patriot Post is a highly-acclaimed weekday digest of news, policy and opinion written from the heartland for grassroots leaders nationwide — not the MSM’s ubiquitous Beltway echo-chambers. Read More

Support The Patriot Fund

[From Email Alert:] REPRINTING, FORWARDING AND POSTING: Subscribers may reprint, forward or post original content from The Patriot Post, in whole or part, in accordance with our Terms of Use, with the following citation: “The Patriot Post (https://patriotpost.us/subscribe)”

Intro to ‘From Uncivil Discourse to Civil War?’

Intro by John R. Houk, Blog Editor

By Mark Alexander

Posted August 16, 2018

Mark Alexander’s Patriot Post column Wednesday (8/15/18) has a title that demands to be read – From Uncivil Discourse to Civil War?

Alexander’s zeros in more on the uncivil discourse than the potential outcome of socio-political incivility. The growing separating supporters of the American Left and American Conservatives will end in Civil War if a consensus mending does not occur.

The theme The Patriot Post is the growing violence occurring in the name of Socialism. The Dems embracing this Socialism have attempted to anesthetize the term by calling the ideology Democratic Socialism. The reality though about Democratic Socialism is it is the politics of Communism.

Mark Alexander summed up Communism by this excerpted description:

Russia’s “Red October” Revolution was inspired by the Communist Manifesto, published by Karl Marx in 1848. Marx wrote, “The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. … Take away the heritage of a people and they are easily destroyed.” (Bold text by Blog Editor)

…

As history would have it, Russian revolutionary leader Vladimir Lenin sided with Marx: “The goal of socialism,” he said, “is communism.” But instead of a utopian socialist “workers’ paradise,” a succession of brutal communist tyrants unleashed seven decades of global terror — at an incalculable human toll.

…

In 1959, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev told Eisenhower’s Cabinet Secretary Ezra Taft Benson: “Your children’s children will live under communism. You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept Communism outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of Socialism until you will finally wake up and find that you already have Communism. We won’t have to fight you; We’ll so weaken your economy, until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands.”

…

Fact is, National Socialism and Democratic Socialism are much the same as Marxist Socialism — behind the façades. (Bold text by Blog Editor)

Contemporary leftists would like you to believe that there’s a clear distinction, but Adolf Hitler was certainly a socialist. In his autobiography Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote of his Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers’ Party, the “NAZI Party”), “The party should not become a constable of public opinion, but must dominate it. It must not become a servant of the masses, but their master.” On the socialist state versus individual Liberty, he wrote, “The unity of a nation’s spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual; and that the higher interests involved in the life of the whole must here set the limits and lay down the duties of the interests of the individual.”

READ ENTIRETY (Communism — A Centennial Celebration of Tyranny and Terror; By Mark Alexander; The Patriot Post; 10/25/17)

Socialism, Democratic Socialism & Communism represent everything America IS NOT! Conservative know this. The younger generation of mostly Millennials have been brainwashed by years of alternative history AND a lack of true history, especially in the failure to teach American history.

ERGO, a chasm widens Americans which will erupt into Civil War – AGAIN.

JRH 8/16/18

Please Support NCCR

*******************

From Uncivil Discourse to Civil War?

Historic socialist assaults on Liberty were not as organized and targeted, nor did they have the tacit approval of a major political party.

By Mark Alexander

Aug. 15, 2018

The Patriot Post

“Nothing is more certain than that a general profligacy and corruption of manners make a people ripe for destruction. A good form of government may hold the rotten materials together for some time, but beyond a certain pitch, even the best constitution will be ineffectual, and slavery must ensue.” —John Witherspoon (1776)

Make America Civil Again

The Democrat Party’s fastest growing identity-politics constituency has, for the last decade, been coalescing around a theme that is both animating and destructive: Hate. The current chorus of contemptible rhetoric comes from leftist Demo antagonists, their Leftmedia propagandists whose ad revenues depend on conflict and dissent, and the hate-profiteering groups now forming “thought patrols.”

Make no mistake: This new constituency is growing more desperate and disenfranchised by the day, and the inherent risks of such hate-filled rhetoric pose an ominous threat to civility and to the future of American Liberty.

Since 1960, Democrats have built their party along lines of division, and now, they rely almost completely on the politics of disunity to sustain their constituencies and maintain their power. Their political playbook has only one chapter: “Divide and Conquer.” The two major lines of this Demo-division are economic class disparity, created in large measure by their own failed economic policies, and the socio-cultural victimization cards of race, ethnicity, religion, and gender.

But as their political identity constituencies began to soften, they have resorted to a new identity attribute to unify all the others: Hate.

Over the last decade, fomenting hate has become the centerpiece of Democrat strategy. But as the party has become more radicalized and its rhetoric more unhinged, the center-left is being eviscerated. The net result is that fewer Democrats are proud to be Americans and, as an astounding new Gallup poll notes, Democrats now prefer socialism to capitalism.

Barack Obama, who was himself a disciple of hate, spawned in 2011 a movement of “useful idiots” under the “Occupy Wall Street” banner. That movement was joined by the so-called “Black Lives Matter” constituency in 2014 and the emerging “antifa movement” of self-proclaimed anti-fascist fascists in 2016.

Notwithstanding the fact that Obama’s BLM-fueled hatred inspired the murder of police officers in New York and in Dallas, antifa is now emerging as the most broadly violent of leftist groups. Its riotous confrontations in August 2017, targeting the normally quiet town of Charlottesville, Virginia, ostensibly in support of the removal of historic monuments, prompted liberal Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz to make this clear to his Democrat colleagues: “Antifa is a radical, anti-America, anti-free market, communist, socialist, hard-left sensorial organization.”

Idiotfest – Democratic Socialists of America

These groups have two common denominators. They embrace and spread hate and they subscribe to the delusion of democratic socialism. They are well organized by statist handlers, including Direct Action Network and Democratic Socialists of America — a.k.a., fascists. They are well financed by their billionaire backers, the archenemies of Liberty — George Soros, Tom Steyer, Jeff Bezos, and Michael Bloomberg.

In 2016, socialist/fascists consolidated around the candidacy of Bernie Sanders, whose non-Democratic presidential primary bid was surreptitiously stolen by Obama’s heir-apparent, Hillary Clinton. But in reality, Clinton’s Democrats and Sanders’s socialists constitute a distinction without much difference. Indeed, the Democrat Party’s protagonists, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), and of course Sanders, have become a unified chorus of populist socialism deniers and hate provocateurs.

The stunning defeat of Clinton in 2016 by Donald Trump, who has mastered the art of antagonizing his opponents, greatly amplified the leftist tenor of hatred. The most strident of the Demo hate-spewers have decompensated into an illness alternatively called “Trump Derangement Syndrome” or the more formal “Trump Anxiety Disorder.”

But the escalating violence and the unprovoked attacks on Republicans and Trump supporters is no laughing matter.

The most notable of those attacks was in June 2017, when one of Bernie Sanders’s conscripts, an Obama “99%”er from Illinois, attempted the mass murder of congressional Republicans on a Virginia baseball field. This deranged Democrat severely wounded House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and injured four others before being killed by Scalise’s security detail. Notably, if Scalise and his security team hadn’t attended this early morning practice, the other 11 members of Congress would have been utterly defenseless.

But the list of other assaults is long and growing more violent.

In the last two weeks, the Demos’ hate-filled constituencies have rioted in three cities: Providence, Rhode Island; Portland, Oregon; and Berkeley, California. I would include Washington, DC, on that list, but the police presence there last weekend largely contained the haters before they became violent, much to the Leftmedia’s dismay.

Antifa – Then & Now

It’s no small irony that leftist protesters are confusing conservatives with Nazis. Ironic, I note, because the hatred being driven by leftist Demo rhetoric is taking on shades of the 1934 “Night of the Long Knives” purges of the National Socialist German Workers Party, as there is a now-discernible trend of Democrat moderates being pushed aside for hyper-leftist candidates. The most notable case in point would be the defeat of 10-term Demo incumbent Rep. Joe Crowley in New York’s 14th congressional district by 28-year-old socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

If the brown shirt fits…

As Rep. Steve King (R-IA), never one to shy away from hard-hitting and controversial remarks, observed recently, “America is heading in the direction of another Harpers Ferry. After that comes Fort Sumter.”

We aren’t there yet.

Our nation’s Constitution and the Liberty it enshrines have been through cycles of assault by socialists, fascists, and anarchist groups for the last hundred years. But what differentiates the current cycle from those of the past is that past movements were never as organized and targeted, nor did they have the tacit approval of a major political party.

The escalating Demo-inspired violence certainly puts our nation on a collision course with disunity on a national scale — if it does not subside.

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis Pro Deo et Libertate — 1776

______________________

[From TPP Email Notification:]

*PUBLIUS*

The Patriot Post is protected speech pursuant to the “unalienable rights” of all men, and the First (and Second) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. In God we trust.

REPRINTING, FORWARDING AND POSTING: Subscribers may reprint, forward or post original content from The Patriot Post, in whole or part, in accordance with our Terms of Use, with the following citation: “The Patriot Post (https://patriotpost.us/subscribe)”

The Patriot Post
PO Box 507
Chattanooga, TN, 37401

[From Website:] Our Mission

The Patriot Post is steadfast in our mission to extend the endowment of Liberty to the next generation by advocating for individual rights and responsibilities, supporting the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and promoting free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. We are a rock-solid conservative touchstone for the expanding ranks of grassroots Americans Patriots from all walks of life. We are not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we do not accept advertising to ensure our advocacy is not restrained by commercial influence. Our mission and operation budgets are funded entirely by the contributions from Patriots like you. Please support The Patriot Fund today!

Antifa v. Alt-Right in Charlottesville — and America

Mark Alexander of The Patriot Post writes about the hypocrisy of the Dems, Leftist MSM, and RINOs reporting on the Charlottesville rumble. It’s a great follow-up on my post “Charlottesville Violent Participants Pt ONE”.

JRH 8/16/17

Please Support NCCR

*****************

Antifa v. Alt-Right in Charlottesville — and America

The coming battles between sociopathic Leftists — the socialist “anti-fascists” and the “alternate-right” anarchists.

By Mark Alexander

Aug. 16, 2017

(Email Alert Sent: 8/16/2017 2:39 PM)

The Patriot Post

“It is the manners and spirit of a people, which preserve a republic in vigor. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution.” —Thomas Jefferson (1787)

Liberals ME & Liberals in USA

Last weekend, according to NBC Chicago, there were nine people killed and more than 30 wounded in gunfights on the streets of Chicago — and those figures don’t include the deaths and injuries from other weapons within that Democrat Party pit.

This is a recurring tragedy in Chicago, and yet it’s highly probable that 99.999% of Americans have not heard about those deaths. Indeed, even though most of the murdered were black, who beyond the immediate family and friends of the deceased can name a single unfortunate victim of all the hatred and violence that is commonplace there?

The reason their names and faces are anonymous is that their lives have no value as political fodder for the Demo/media propaganda machine or its so-called “Black Lives Matter” constituency. Those victims are simply tossed onto the pile of 430 homicides in Chicago thus far this year, to the horror of those of us who believe that “all lives matter.”

Now consider this: Last weekend, there was one person murdered in Charlottesville, Virginia, by an Ohio man, and the whole world knows the name of that unfortunate victim.

Charlottesville is, as anyone who has been there can attest, a great town. In January, I declined an invitation to attend the Trump inaugural fanfare, opting instead that weekend to meet my son in Charlottesville for a few days visiting friends and re-visiting historic sites.

This area is, in my opinion, the richest historic region in America.

Charlottesville is the site of Declaration of Independence author Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello home, which sits just above the town, and his beloved University of Virginia. Just beyond Monticello is James Monroe’s Highland home place. To the north is Montpelier, home of our Constitution’s author, James Madison. To the west is Lexington, home of Washington and Lee University and Virginia Military Academy — and burial place of Virginia sons Robert E. Lee and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson. Northeast is George Washington’s Mount Vernon, and the home of George Mason. To the east are Richmond, Williamsburg, Jamestown and Yorktown — the final battle site of the American Revolution.

Despite being the epicenter of such extraordinary history, Charlottesville is also lorded over by a disgraceful mayor, Mike Signer, and his Leftist city council — a group of Berkeley wannabes who have led local historical purges of Thomas Jefferson and Robert E. Lee.

It was the planned removal of a small statue of the latter from a city park that was the catalyst for the obscene riots last weekend in this otherwise quiet and idyllic town.

That riot was a clash between sociopathic forces — the antifa, the ironically self-styled “anti-fascists” leading the Leftist intifada against anyone supporting Liberty or any economic system other than socialism, and the alt-right, an anarcho-fascist fringe movement of white supremacists. Notably the alt-right racists had an ACLU-defended permit for their protest hate speech. The antifa socialists and black supremacists showed up in mass without a permit.

Thugs Clash in Charlottesville

Eight years of racial antagonism by Barack Obama and his radical regime led to mass riots in more than 20 American urban centers, fomented by Leftist groups operating under the banners of Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, antifa, et al. That violence erupted in Oakland, Akron and Pittsburgh in 2009; Santa Cruz, Oakland and Los Angeles in 2010; Oakland in 2011; Chicago and Anaheim in 2012; Brooklyn in 2013; Ferguson and New York City in 2014; Baltimore in 2015; Anaheim, Chicago, St. Paul, Milwaukee, Charlotte, Standing Rock, Oakland and Portland in 2016; and DC, Berkeley, Anaheim, Berkeley part 2, Berkeley part 3, Olympia and Portland in 2017.

While Republicans, Democrats and the mainstream media have correctly tagged one side of the hateful antagonists in Charlottesville as “white supremacists,” you won’t find any reference by any Democrat, or their Leftmedia propagandists, to the “black supremacists” who were at the center of, or significant participants in, all the aforementioned urban violence.

Nor did a single politico or media outlet rightly tag Micah X, who murdered five police officers in Dallas a year ago, a “black supremacist.” He was just the latest manifestation of the Democrats’ playbook, which endeavors to foment disunity to rally constituencies. To them, dead police officers are just collateral damage.

Remarkably, the riot in Charlottesville has already received more mass media bandwidth than the attempted mass assassination in June of multiple Republican congressmen in Alexandria, Virginia, by a hate-filled Bernie Sanders supporter.

Perhaps “Virginia is [not] for Lovers” after all? Actually, Virginia is a great state when it’s not baiting anarchist haters.

Given the media feeding frenzy inspired by the riots in Charlottesville, allow me to impart a few observations.

First: Regarding President Donald Trump’s repeated condemnation of both the racists and the socialists…

Assessing the violence, Charlottesville police chief Al Thomas noted, “Other groups [opposing the alt-right faction] began amassing along the street and in the park. Gradually, the crowd sizes increased along with aggressiveness and hostility of attendees toward one another. … We did have mutually combating individuals in the crowd.”

This mutual violence was evident to everyone present, and it was affirmed in real time by New York Times reporter Hawes Spencer, who observed, “Protesters maced each other, threw water bottles and urine balloons — some of which hit reporters — and generally beat the crap out of each other with flagpoles.”

However, Trump should not have dared to suggest that the violence was from both sides of the idiot line. According to the Leftmedia, the antifa groups are just a bunch of wholesome all-American “counter-protesters” defending our country against an epidemic of right-wing (Republican) hatred.

After concurring with the police chief and other observers about “mutually combating individuals,” Trump said, “We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides. On many sides. No matter our color, creed, religion or political party we are all Americans first.”

But that denunciation wasn’t sufficient for the Leftmedia — or for establishment Republicans, who knew full well that the Demo/MSM would label them as “soft on supremacists” because Trump dared to identify both ugly factions.

Sunday, the White House communications staff followed up with: “The President said very strongly in his statement yesterday that he condemns all forms of violence, bigotry and hatred and of course that includes white Supremacists, KKK, neo-Nazi and all extremist groups. He called for national unity and bringing all Americans together.”

But even that was insufficient for the Leftmedia. Trump had failed to elevate the standing of the conflict to the level that best serves the Demo/MSM agenda and the need to cash in on the chaos for ad revenue and political contributions.

So Trump on Monday called a press confab and repeatedly condemned the racists in what was to be a unifying speech.

But that was too little too late for the Leftmedia.

MSM reports Trump Said …

On Tuesday, in a contentious confrontation with MSM agitators, Trump dared again to suggest that the violence was mutual: “You had a group on one side that was bad, and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent, and nobody wants to say that. But I’ll say it right now: I think there is blame on both sides and I don’t have a doubt about it and you [reporters] don’t have a doubt about it either.”

He also condemned the removal of historic markers, saying, “This week it’s Robert E. Lee. I notice that Stonewall Jackson’s [statue is] coming down. I wonder, is George Washington next week, and is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You really do have to ask yourself, when does it stop?”

Of the Leftmedia “outrage” over Trump’s responses, Vice President Mike Pence said, “I take issue with the fact that many in the media … have spent an awful lot of time focusing on what the president said and criticisms of what the president said, instead of criticizing those who brought that hatred and violence to the streets of Charlottesville, Virginia.” He is correct.

Second: The Bannon problem…

While I believe Trump’s response to the violence was measured — if very Trumpian — I also believe he has a problem on his staff by the name of Steve Bannon, chairman of his 2016 campaign and now his chief strategist.

Here’s the problem.

Jason Kessler is the white supremacist organizer of the “Unite the Right” protest in Charlottesville. He’s a University of Virginia graduate who lists on his résumé his last job as being a writer for “Daily Caller,” an online “conservative” news website co-founded in 2010 by Fox News host Tucker Carlson. For the record, despite the fact that I like Carlson’s commentary, our staff considers Daily Caller a well-funded titillation tabloid, and for that reason, it undermines the standing of genuine grassroots conservative publications. Indeed, as of this week, Daily Caller has scrubbed the commentary it hosted from Kessler.

Kessler’s colleague, Massachusetts native Richard Spencer, also a UVA graduate, was agitating the hatefest in Charlottesville.

Spencer is the founder of AlternativeRight.com, the alt-right homepage espousing, among other things, white supremacist views. After Trump’s election, Spencer led an alt-right conference group with “Hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory!” chants. When Trump tapped Bannon to be a senior advisor, Spencer claimed he was in “the best possible position” to influence policy.

That brings me to Bannon himself, who took control of Breitbart News in 2012 after the death of Andrew Breitbart. Bannon did to Andrew’s popular website what Jeff Bezos is doing to the once-respectable Washington Post — adulterating its content to comport with extremist political views.

Breitbart News described Spencer’s website as the “center of alt-right thought,” and in 2016, Bannon declared Breitbart “the platform for the alt-right.” Spencer concurred, noting that Breitbart “has acted as a ‘gateway’ to alt-right ideas and writers.”

This, of course, doesn’t make Bannon or Trump “white supremacists.” Bannon, like Trump, has a propensity for shooting from the hip and saying stupid stuff. And most Trump supporters would have no idea what the “alt-right” is because, in fact, it’s nothing more than a minuscule fringe political identity group. But the Leftmedia would have you believe it’s the very foundation of the Republican Party.

In November 2016, Trump responded to questions about Bannon’s appointment, saying, “I’ve known Steve Bannon a long time. If I thought he was a racist, or alt-right … I wouldn’t even think about hiring him.”

But can you detect the problem here?

All you need to know about Bannon is that he does not have enough humility, in the interest of Trump’s agenda, to resign.

Third: Regarding the Orwellian trend of “historical cleansing” underway by Leftists…

The “progressive” use of violence to force the removal of historical monuments from public spaces should concern Americans of all political stripes. This extremely dangerous trend by Leftists, like those sitting on the city council of historical hub Charlottesville, smacks of socialist Soviet “airbrushing” and the Maoist “Cultural Revolution.”

Longtime friend of The Patriot Post, distinguished George Mason University professor Walter Williams, has issued erudite warnings about the consequences of historical ignorance here and here, including the removal of historic markers to Confederate generals and the rewriting of American history.

The vast majority of Americans, including me, who strenuously object to tearing down and stamping out our historical heritage do not object because of some racist affinity. We object because this is our story, and because whitewashing it is an affront to American history and to our legacy of Liberty.

Predictably, seizing the mindless momentum, the Black Congressional Caucus issued demands for the first phase of monument removals in the U.S. Capitol building.

Booker T Washington quote on racism

As 20th century philosopher George Santayana concluded in his treatise, “The Life of Reason”: “Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

English writer Aldous Huxley put it more succinctly: “That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.”

Fourth: The ACLU and Charlottesville Police…

Notably, ACLU observers on Twitter were among the first to report that the Charlottesville police had stand-down orders, allowing the violence to escalate: “Clash between protesters and counter protesters. Police say, ‘We’ll not intervene until given command to do so.’” But that order never came.

This was affirmed by Fox News reporter Doug McKelway, who was in the middle of the combatants. “When the tear gas started to fly, thrown by protesters, the police themselves began to evacuate. I asked the guy who was in charge, ‘Where you going?’ He said, ‘We’re leaving. It’s too dangerous.’ They had a chance to nip this thing in the bud and they chose not to.”

If police officers are wholly unprepared for the level of violence, they should retreat. But this retreat looked more like the “stand-down” order that accelerated the 2015 Baltimore race riots.

Fifth: Who is funding antifa, Black Lives Matter and all the other Marxist/black supremacist groups that have emerged since 2008?

Judicial Watch is suing America-hating billionaire socialist George Soros for his funding records of Leftist political groups. Keep a sharp eye on the outcome of this lawsuit.

Finally, regarding the Republicans’ stampede to distance themselves from phony Leftist charges of racism, seeking to distance yourself from something already far removed actually feeds the narrative that maybe it is not so far removed.

To paraphrase a line from Shakespeare’s Hamlet, “Republicans doth apologize too much, methinks.”

The Democrat Party and its Leftmedia outlets are colluding to publicize, and thus politicize, upcoming alt-right-versus-antifa venues for conflict in order to advance their agenda. In doing so, they hope to hang these riots around Republican necks.

But let’s be clear: Every drop of blood that’s shed in these riots — and there will be more of them — is on the hands of the Demo/MSM propaganda machine that is fomenting the disunity that propagates them — and Republicans had better start shining a light on that, as Donald Trump has done, rather than cowering behind a microphone.

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Pro Deo et Libertate — 1776

_____________

From the email alert:

REPRINTING, FORWARDING AND POSTING: Subscribers may reprint, forward or post original content from The Patriot Post, in whole or part, in accordance with our Terms of Use, with the following citation: “The Patriot Post (http://patriotpost.us/subscribe/)”

Support The Patriot Post

About The Patriot Post

“Our cause is noble; it is the cause of mankind!” —George Washington (1779)

Mission and Objective

In 1996, concerned about the erosion of our Republic’s political and social institutions under Bill Clinton’s regime, and the virtual monopoly the mainstream media held on public opinion, Mark Alexander launched the online journal The Federalist — now published as The Patriot Post.

He did so with sage advice from conservative protagonists William F. Buckley (National Review, Emeritus) and Ed Feulner (Heritage Foundation, Emeritus), foreseeing a day when the Internet would overtake print and cable media as a primary source of news, policy and opinion — the most significant First Amendment advancement since our nation’s founding.

Alexander assembled an impressive National Advisory Committee and recruited an editorial team of young conservatives from across the nation. Together, they … READ THE REST

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: