Daily Archives: January 13, 2019

January 13 Matters of Faith

Scripture Reading: Exodus 5

Key Verse: Isaiah 55:9

For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.

You did something kind for a neighbor, and your gesture was considered to be self-serving. You put in extra hours on a project at work helping a coworker in a bind, and others said you were just trying to look good to your boss. It hurts when people misunderstand your intentions. Not only is the good effect lost in the process, but you end up with blame you don’t deserve.

Think about how Moses felt. He was God’s special messenger on a divinely appointed mission of mercy, and the people accused him of trying to make their lives more miserable. They were absolutely wrong, as they would later discover, but in the meantime submissive Moses caught the brunt of their grumbling.

Such misinterpretations often happen in matters of faith. Why? God’s ways do not always make sense in a sinful world. His methods sometimes turn human reasoning on its head or go against popular opinion. And sometimes the benefits or rewards of obedience are delayed or delivered in a way that nonbelievers cannot recognize.

If others mock you for doing what the Lord says instead of walking in the world’s path, you can stand firm. The true and ultimate victory belongs to Him.

Dear heavenly Father, even though Your ways don’t always make sense to my human reasoning, I know the ultimate victory belongs to You. Let me stand firm in this knowledge and walk Your way instead of the pathways of this sinful world.[1]

[1] Stanley, C. F. (1999). On holy ground (p. 14). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Sunday Talks: Connecticut Democrat Rep. Jim Himes -vs- Maria Bartiromo…. — The Last Refuge

Suspicious cat sparks are flying as Maria Bartiromo questions Connecticut Democrat Rep. Jim Himes about the intents and purposes of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) in the upcoming investigative sessions.

HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff is closely coordinating with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, White House Oversight Chairman Elijah Cummings and Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler on the pre-established impeachment road map.

Preliminary oversight subpoenas and witness testimony kicks-off immediately after the Superbowl with a February 7th hearing for Michael Cohen and Lanny Davis.

via Sunday Talks: Connecticut Democrat Rep. Jim Himes -vs- Maria Bartiromo…. — The Last Refuge

As FBI Ramped Up “Witch Hunt” When Trump Fired Comey, Strzok Admitted Collusion Investigation A Joke

A Friday report in the New York Times revealing that the FBI supercharged its Trump-Russia collusion investigation after President Trump fired FBI director James Comey appears to have backfired – especially when one reviews internal FBI communications from the time period in question.

The Daily Caller‘s Chuck Ross has made a brilliant observation, noting Peter Strzok – then the FBI’s deputy chief of counterintelligence, admitted to his FBI lawyer mistress, Lisa Page, that there was no merit to the investigation.

Nine days after Comey was fired and the DOJ “sought to determine whether Mr. Trump was knowingly working for Russia,” Strzok texted Page on May 18, 2017: “You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely I’d be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there’s no big there there.

It is unclear from The Times report what information was used as a predicate to open the investigation. The article suggests that the FBI had long considered the move and that Comey’s firing and Trump’s subsequent comments marked a tipping point.

A source close to Strzok told The Daily Caller News Foundation on Jan. 26, 2018, shortly after the text was released, that the message reflected Strzok’s concern that the FBI would not find evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. –Daily Caller

The Times’ explanation for the FBI’s rationale that Trump may have been a Russian asset consists of Trump’s call for Moscow to release Hillary Clinton’s emails an election debate, and allegations contained within the unverified Steele Dossier. The Times was also quick to note that Trump may have “unwittingly fallen under Moscow’s influence,” to temper the accusation that he was an agent of a foreign power. In short, weak sauce.

It’s no wonder Strzok was hesitant to join Mueller’s team.

Interestingly, another series of Strzok-Page texts refers to “coordinating investigation” after Strzok apparently met with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who both recommended Comey’s firing, then authorized the special counsel probe.

As Ross notes in The Daily Caller, there were other text messages that between Strzok and Page which raise suspicion over whether the FBI was working on a “gotcha” against Trump.

And we need to open the case we’ve been waiting on now while Andy is acting,” Strzok texted Page the day Comey was fired, referring to then-deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe.

Meanwhile, Page – who served as McCabe’s deputy, provided some additional color on the text messages during her July 2018 congressional testimony, suggesting that the “case we’ve been waiting on” text referred to an investigation separate of the obstruction probe we already knew about. 

“Well, other than obstruction, what could it have been?” one lawmaker asked Page in her interview, details of which were published by The Epoch Times on Friday.

I can’t answer that, sir. I’m sorry,” she replied.

“If I was able to explain in more depth why the Director firing precipitated this text, I would,” she continued while declining to say if the text message referred to an obstruction of justice investigation or something more. –Daily Caller

That said, Page admitted that Comey’s firing prompted the text exchange.

“So the firing of Jim Comey was the precipitating event as opposed to the occupant of the Director’s office?” asked one lawmaker.

“Yes, that’s correct,” replied Page.

Meanwhile, The Times went to great lengths to imply that the FBI was justified in their ratcheted-up collusion investigation – failing to mention who started the probe, who led it, and more importantly – waiting until the 9th paragraph to mention the fact that it turned up nothing.

“No evidence has emerged publicly that Mr. Trump was secretly in contact with or took direction from Russian government officials. An F.B.I. spokeswoman and a spokesman for the special counsel’s office both declined to comment.”

Source: As FBI Ramped Up “Witch Hunt” When Trump Fired Comey, Strzok Admitted Collusion Investigation A Joke

Sunday Talks: Senator Lindsey Graham -vs- Derp Wallace… — The Last Refuge


Senator Lindsey Graham appears on Derp TV to discuss the latest in the government shutdown and his request for President Trump to declare a state-of-emergency to build the southern border wall.  Senator Graham notes he spoke to President Trump approximately 30 minutes prior to this interview:

via Sunday Talks: Senator Lindsey Graham -vs- Derp Wallace… — The Last Refuge

Sarah Sanders RIPS Dems For Partying on Beach in Puerto Rico Amid Government Shutdown — The Gateway Pundit

The Democrats are partying in Puerto Rico amid the longest government shutdown in US history while President Trump is busy meeting with border patrol agents, trying to secure funding for the wall.

Thirty Congressional Democrats are currently in Puerto Rico on a winter retreat as the government shutdown goes into its 4th week.

The Dems show they really care about federal workers not getting their paychecks by jet-setting and partying with the cast of Hamilton.

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders ripped the Democrats on Sunday in a tweet.

“Democrats in Congress are so alarmed about federal workers not getting paid they’re partying on the beach instead of negotiating a compromise to reopen the government and secure the border,” Sanders said in a tweet Sunday.

On Sunday, the President made a reference to the Dems ‘having fun and not talking,’ however he did not specifically blast them for being in Puerto Rico.

Puerto Ricans should hide their underage teenage daughters because Bob Menendez is in the house!

Democrat Senator and pervert Bob Menendez was spotted hanging out with a bikini-clad “colleague” on the beach in Puerto Rico three weeks into the shutdown without a care in the world.

The Drudge Report put the Democrats and Menendez on blast Sunday with a searing headline banner.

The Hispanic Caucus of liberal Democrats is holding their retreat at a posh tropical resort while American government workers are suffering.

The event is taking place in a seaside resort where rooms go for $429 a night. Food is being provided.

30 of the Congressional members made the trip.
Click here to see the list of the 38 Hispanic Caucus members — All Democrats!

via Sarah Sanders RIPS Dems For Partying on Beach in Puerto Rico Amid Government Shutdown — The Gateway Pundit

Andrew McCarthy Makes Key Point About FBI Investigation: “they used the Steele Dossier; the dossier was only about Trump”… — The Last Refuge

Andrew McCarthy has a great common sense Op-Ed written today [SEE HERE].  One of the key points McCarthy makes is akin to a bull licking a NYT journalist on the face.

The NYT wrote their article about the FBI opening an investigation on President Trump ‘as if‘ that was some big revelation; however, McCarthy points out the FBI believed the Steele Dossier and used it as evidence in their FISA applications.  The Steele Dossier was only about Donald Trump, no-one else.  The fact that the FBI would believe and use the Steele Dossier is proof alone their investigation was always and only about Donald Trump.

via Andrew McCarthy Makes Key Point About FBI Investigation: “they used the Steele Dossier; the dossier was only about Trump”… — The Last Refuge




By Rev. Thomas Littleton                                                                                                                   1/12/2019

The legacy of Chuck Colson is to some Christians a very trusted partner for Conservative causes and political/ cultural engagement. To others, like this author, the legacy is a mixed bag with a dangerous history of highly compromised ecumenical ties and a world view well beyond the comfort zone for Biblically conservative Christians. Some in this more cautious group may still consider the conversion of Colson and his Prison Fellowship ministry to have contributed to a lasting legacy for outreach in prisons nationwide. Colson Center established the   Colson Fellows program upon the death of Chuck Colson in 2012. Today the Colson Center is in younger, far less capable hands -as is often the case with second generation leadership in ministries.

In 2018 we witnessed the revelation of deep infiltration, compromise…

View original post 3,460 more words

January 13 The Strength to Say No

Scripture reading: 1 Timothy 4:6–8

Key verse: Romans 6:19

I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness.

An inevitable result of walking with the Lord in daily relationship is an increased desire to see your character shaped according to His will. In his book The Pursuit of Holiness, Jerry Bridges explains,

As unbelievers, we formerly gave ourselves to developing habits of unholiness—what Paul called “ever increasing wickedness” (Romans 6:19). Every time we sinned … we were developing habits of ever-increasing wickedness …

But now, Paul declared, just as we formerly gave ourselves to these wicked habits, so we are to give ourselves to developing habits of holiness … We are to put off our old self—our sinful disposition and habits—and put on the new self, with its character and habits of holiness. To train ourselves in godliness (1 Timothy 4:7) is to discipline and structure our lives so that we develop godly habits …

Though we are to deal with these habits of unholiness, we must not try to do it in our own strength. Breaking sinful habits must be done in cooperation with the Holy Spirit and in dependence upon Him …

Therefore, in dependence on the Holy Spirit, we must systematically work at acquiring the habit of saying no to the sins that so easily entangle us … The more we succeed in saying no to our sinful desires, the easier it becomes to say no.

Dear God, break the bondage of sinful habits and desires in my life. Give me the strength to say no![1]

[1] Stanley, C. F. (2000). Into His presence (p. 14). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

2019: World Economy Is Reaching Growth Limits; Expect Low Oil Prices, Financial Turbulence

Authored by Gail Tverberg via Our Finite World blog,

Financial markets have been behaving in a very turbulent manner in the last couple of months. The issue, as I see it, is that the world economy is gradually shifting from a growth mode to a mode of shrinkage. This is something like a ship changing course, from going in one direction to going in reverse. The system acts as if the brakes are being very forcefully applied, and reaction of the economy is to almost shake.

What seems to be happening is that the world economy is reaching Limits to Growth, as predicted in the computer simulations modeled in the 1972 book, The Limits to Growth. In fact, the base model of that set of simulations indicated that peak industrial output per capita might be reached right about now. Peak food per capita might be reached about the same time. I have added a dotted line to the forecast from this model, indicating where the economy seems to be in 2019, relative to the base model.

Figure 1. Base scenario from The Limits to Growth, printed using today’s graphics by Charles Hall and John Day in Revisiting Limits to Growth After Peak Oil with dotted line at 2019 added by author. The 2019 line is drawn based on where the world economy seems to be now, rather than on precisely where the base model would put the year 2019.

The economy is a self-organizing structure that operates under the laws of physics. Many people have thought that when the world economy reaches limits, the limits would be of the form of high prices and “running out” of oil. This represents an overly simple understanding of how the system works. What we should really expect, and in fact, what we are now beginning to see, is production cuts in finished goods made by the industrial system, such as cell phones and automobiles, because of affordability issues. Indirectly, these affordability issues lead to low commodity prices and low profitability for commodity producers. For example:

  • The sale of Chinese private passenger vehicles for the year of 2018 through November is down by 2.8%, with November sales off by 16.1%. Most analysts are forecasting this trend of contracting sales to continue into 2019. Lower sales seem to reflect affordability issues.
  • Saudi Arabia plans to cut oil production by 800,000 barrels per day from the November 2018 level, to try to raise oil prices. Profits are too low at current prices.
  • Coal is reported not to have an economic future in Australia, partly because of competition from subsidized renewables and partly because China and India want to prop up the prices of coal from their own coal mines.

The Significance of Trump’s Tariffs

If a person looks at history, it becomes clear that tariffs are a standard response to a problem of shrinking food or industrial output per capita. Tariffs were put in place in the 1920s in the time leading up to the Great Depression, and were investigated after the Panic of 1857, which seems to have indirectly led to the US Civil War.

Whenever an economy produces less industrial or food output per capita there is an allocation problem: who gets cut off from buying output similar to the amount that they previously purchased? Tariffs are a standard way that a relatively strong economy tries to gain an advantage over weaker economies. Tariffs are intended to help the citizens of the strong economy maintain their previous quantity of goods and services, even as other economies are forced to get along with less.

I see Trump’s trade policies primarily as evidence of an underlying problem, namely, the falling affordability of goods and services for a major segment of the population. Thus, Trump’s tariffs are one of the pieces of evidence that lead me to believe that the world economy is reaching Limits to Growth.

The Nature of World Economic Growth

Economic growth seems to require growth in three dimensions (a) Complexity, (b) Debt Bubble, and (c) Use of Resources. Today, the world economy seems to be reaching limits in all three of these dimensions (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Complexity involves adding more technology, more international trade and more specialization. Its downside is that it indirectly tends to reduce affordability of finished end products because of growing wage disparity; many non-elite workers have wages that are too low to afford very much of the output of the economy. As more complexity is added, wage disparity tends to increase. International wage competition makes the situation worse.

growing debt bubble can help keep commodity prices up because a rising amount of debt can indirectly provide more demand for goods and services. For example, if there is growing debt, it can be used to buy homes, cars, and vacation travel, all of which require oil and other energy consumption.

If debt levels become too high, or if regulators decide to raise short-term interest rates as a method of slowing the economy, the debt bubble is in danger of collapsing. A collapsing debt bubble tends to lead to recession and falling commodity prices. Commodity prices fell dramatically in the second half of 2008. Prices now seem to be headed downward again, starting in October 2018.

Figure 3. Brent oil prices with what appear to be debt bubble collapses marked.

Figure 4. Three-month treasury secondary market rates compared to 10-year treasuries from FRED, with points where short term interest rates exceed long term rates marked by author with arrows.

Even the relatively slow recent rise in short-term interest rates (Figure 4) seems to be producing a decrease in oil prices (Figure 3) in a way that a person might expect from a debt bubble collapse. The sale of US Quantitative Easing assets at the same time that interest rates have been rising no doubt adds to the problem of falling oil prices and volatile stock markets. The gray bars in Figure 4 indicate recessions.

Growing use of resources becomes increasingly problematic for two reasons. One is population growth. As population rises, the economy needs more food to feed the growing population. This leads to the need for more complexity (irrigation, better seed, fertilizer, world trade) to feed the growing world population.

The other problem with growing use of resources is diminishing returns, leading to the rising cost of extracting commodities over time. Diminishing returns occur because producers tend to extract the cheapest to extract commodities first, leaving in place the commodities requiring deeper wells or more processing. Even water has this difficulty. At times, desalination, at very high cost, is needed to obtain sufficient fresh water for a growing population.

Why Inadequate Energy Supplies Lead to Low Oil Prices Rather than High

In the last section, I discussed the cost of producing commodities of many kinds rising because of diminishing returns. Higher costs should lead to higher prices, shouldn’t they?

Strangely enough, higher costs translate to higher prices only sometimes. When energy consumption per capita is rising rapidly (peaks of red areas on Figure 5), rising costs do seem to translate to rising prices. Spiking oil prices were experienced several times: 1917 to 1920; 1974 to 1982; 2004 to mid 2008; and 2011 to 2014. All of these high oil prices occurred toward the end of the red peaks on Figure 5. In fact, these high oil prices (as well as other high commodity prices that tend to rise at the same time as oil prices) are likely what brought growth in energy consumption down. The prices of goods and services made with these commodities became unaffordable for lower-wage workers, indirectly decreasing the growth rate in energy products consumed.

Figure 5.

The red peaks represented periods of very rapid growth, fed by growing supplies of very cheap energy: coal and hydroelectricity in the Electrification and Early Mechanizationperiod, oil in the Postwar Boom, and coal in the China period. With low energy prices,  many countries were able to expand their economies simultaneously, keeping demand high. The Postwar Boom also reflected the addition of many women to the labor force, increasing the ability of families to afford second cars and nicer homes.

Rapidly growing energy consumption allowed per capita output of both food (with meat protein given a higher count than carbohydrates) and industrial products to grow rapidly during these peaks. The reason that output of these products could grow is because the laws of physics require energy consumption for heat, transportation, refrigeration and other processes required by industrialization and farming. In these boom periods, higher energy costs were easy to pass on. Eventually the higher energy costs “caught up with” the economy, and pushed growth in energy consumption per capita down, putting an end to the peaks.

Figure 6 shows Figure 5 with the valleys labeled, instead of the peaks.

Figure 6.

When I say that the world economy is reaching “peak industrial output per capita” and “peak food per capita,” this represents the opposite of a rapidly growing economy. In fact, if the world is reaching Limits to Growth, the situation is even worse than all of the labeled valleys on Figure 6. In such a case, energy consumption growth is likely to shrink so low that even the blue area (population growth) turns negative.

In such a situation, the big problem is “not enough to go around.” While cost increases due to diminishing returns could easily be passed along when growth in industrial and food output per capita were rapidly rising (the Figure 5 situation), this ability seems to disappear when the economy is near limits. Part of the problem is that the lower growth in per capita energy affects the kinds of job that are available. With low energy consumption growth, many of the jobs that are available are service jobs that do not pay well. Wage disparity becomes an increasing problem.

When wage disparity grows, the share of low wage workers rises. If businesses try to pass along their higher costs of production, they encounter market resistance because lower wage workers cannot afford the finished goods made with high cost energy products. For example, auto and iPhone sales in China decline. The lack of Chinese demand tends to lead to a drop in demand for the many commodities used in manufacturing these goods, including both energy products and metals. Because there is very little storage capacity for commodities, a small decline in demand tends to lead to quite a large decline in prices. Even a small decline in China’s demand for energy products can lead to a big decline in oil prices.

Strange as it may seem, the economy ends up with low oil prices, rather than high oil prices, being the problem. Other commodity prices tend to be low as well.

What Is Ahead, If We Are Reaching Economic Growth Limits?

1. Figure 1 at the top of this post seems to give an indication of what is ahead after 2019, but this forecast cannot be relied on. A major issue is that the limited model used at that time did not include the financial system or debt. Even if the model seems to provide a reasonably accurate estimate of when limits will hit, it won’t necessarily give a correct view of what the impact of limits will be on the rest of the economy, after limits hit. The authors, in fact, have said that the model should not be expected to provide reliable indications regarding how the economy will behave after limits have started to have an impact on economic output.

2. As indicated in the title of this post, considerable financial volatility can be expected in 2019 if the economy is trying to slow itself. Stock prices will be erratic; interest rates will be erratic; currency relativities will tend to bounce around. The likelihood that derivatives will cause major problems for banks will rise because derivatives tend to assume more stability in values than now seems to be the case. Increasing problems with derivatives raises the risk of bank failure.

3. The world economy doesn’t necessarily fail all at once. Instead, pieces that are, in some sense, “less efficient” users of energy may shrink back. During the Great Recession of 2008-2009, the countries that seemed to be most affected were countries such as Greece, Spain, and Italy that depend on oil for a disproportionately large share of their total energy consumption. China and India, with energy mixes dominated by coal, were much less affected.

Figure 7. Oil consumption as a percentage of total energy consumption, based on 2018 BP Statistical Review of World Energy data.

Figure 8. Energy consumption per capita for selected areas, based on energy consumption data from 2018 BP Statistical Review of World Energy and United Nations 2017 Population Estimates by Country.

In the 2002-2008 period, oil prices were rising faster than prices of other fossil fuels. This tended to make countries using a high share of oil in their energy mix less competitive in the world market. The low labor costs of China and India gave these countries another advantage. By the end of 2007, China’s energy consumption per capita had risen to a point where it almost matched the (now lower) energy consumption of the European countries shown. China, with its low energy costs, seems to have “eaten the lunch” of some of its European competitors.

In 2019 and the years that follow, some countries may fare at least somewhat better than others. The United States, for now, seems to be faring better than many other parts of the world.

4. While we have been depending upon China to be a leader in economic growth, China’s growth is already faltering and may turn to contraction in the near future. One reason is an energy problem: China’s coal production has fallen because many of its coal mines have been closed due to lack of profitability. As a result, China’s need for imported energy (difference between black line and top of energy production stack) has been growing rapidly. China is now the largest importer of oil, coal, and natural gas in the world. It is very vulnerable to tariffs and to lack of available supplies for import.

Figure 9. China energy production by fuel plus its total energy consumption, based on BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2018 data.

A second issue is that demographics are working against China; its working-age population already seems to be shrinking. A third reason why China is vulnerable to economic difficulties is because of its growing debt level. Debt becomes difficult to repay with interest if the economy slows.

5. Oil exporters such as Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Nigeria have become vulnerable to government overthrow or collapse because of low world oil prices since 2014. If the central government of one or more of these exporters disappears, it is possible that the pieces of the country will struggle along, producing a lower amount of oil, as Libya has done in recent years. It is also possible that another larger country will attempt to take over the failing production of the country and secure the output for itself.

6. Epidemics become increasingly likely, especially in countries with serious financial problems, such as Yemen, Syria, and Venezuela. Historically, much of the decrease in population in countries with collapsing economies has come from epidemics. Of course, epidemics can spread across national boundaries, exporting the problems elsewhere.

7. Resource wars become increasingly likely. These can be local wars, perhaps over the availability of water. They can also be large, international wars. The timing of World War I and World War II make it seem likely that these wars were both resource wars.

Figure 10.

8. Collapsing intergovernmental agencies, such as the European Union, the World Trade Organization, and the International Monetary Fund, seem likely. The United Kingdom’s planned exit from the European Union in 2019 is a step toward dissolving the European Union.

9. Privately funded pension funds will increasingly be subject to default because of continued low interest rates. Some governments may choose to cut back the amounts they provide to pensioners because governments cannot collect adequate tax revenue for this purpose. Some countries may purposely shut down parts of their governments, in an attempt to hold down government spending.

10. A far worse and more permanent recession than that of the Great Recession seems likely because of the difficulty in repaying debt with interest in a shrinking economy. It is not clear when such a recession will start. It could start later in 2019, or perhaps it may wait until 2020. As with the Great Recession, some countries will be affected more than others. Eventually, because of the interconnected nature of financial systems, all countries are likely to be drawn in.


It is not entirely clear exactly what is ahead if we are reaching Limits to Growth. Perhaps that is for the best. If we cannot do anything about it, worrying about the many details of what is ahead is not the best for anyone’s mental health. While it is possible that this is an end point for the human race, this is not certain, by any means. There have been many amazing coincidences over the past 4 billion years that have allowed life to continue to evolve on this planet. More of these coincidences may be ahead. We also know that humans lived through past ice ages. They likely can live through other kinds of adversity, including worldwide economic collapse.

Source: 2019: World Economy Is Reaching Growth Limits; Expect Low Oil Prices, Financial Turbulence

Joe Biden’s Brother Trashes Clintons, Claims Much of His Family Voted for Trump

For the tail end of the Obama presidency, a minor thorn in his side was his half-brother, Malik Obama. During the 2016 campaign, Malik openly backed Donald Trump and expressed “deep disappointment” in how his brother had governed.

“I like Donald Trump because he speaks from the heart,” Malik Obama said at the time. “Make America Great Again is a great slogan. I would like to meet him … Mr. Trump is providing something new and something fresh.”

At that time, Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. was ensconced in the Obama White House as the nation’s vice president.

I’m sure Malik Obama was a minor-league problem in those days, but he was doubtless a problem — a problem Biden could have learned a lesson from when Hillary Clinton lost and Biden instantly became a 2020 frontrunner. If he had any malcontent or too-chatty relatives, maybe then was the time to mollify them. Reach out to them. Maybe send them on a cruise. Then tell them to please, please keep quiet until November of 2020 and — should he be lucky enough — for the eight years beyond that.

But it turns out the former vice president has a younger brother who could complicate any prospective Biden campaign to win the White House in his own right.

TRENDING: ‘Late Night’ Host Seth Meyers in Trouble After Show’s Stomach-Churning Joke About Dead Americans

At least Frank Biden isn’t trashing his brother, or at least not yet. However, in what can only be described as another example of familial non-mollification, the younger brother of the former vice president revealed that some of his family members voted for Donald Trump in 2016 because they “felt slighted” by the Clintons.

#BREAKING — Joe Biden’s brother says his family voted for Trump in 2016.#FrankBiden #realDonaldTrump #JoeBiden pic.twitter.com/tfBM5n8JnO

— Intl Breaking News (@intlbreaking) January 13, 2019

To be fair, Frank Biden made the revelation to bolster the claim that his brother would have been a better candidate against Trump in 2016, so perhaps it’s a mere indication that the elder Biden’s habit of verbal solecisms is a genetic one.

Do you think Joe Biden will be the 2020 nominee?

“We never would have lost Pennsylvania, and all my relatives — the Finnegan family — who voted for Donald Trump because they felt slighted by Hillary and her campaign,” Biden said in an interview with the Palm Beach Post published last week.

“We never would have not gone to Michigan as the campaign decided not to do because they felt entitled to the votes of those people.

“Assumptive politics is losing politics,” he added. “You have to work for every single vote and people have to know individually, collectively and severally that you care about them, that they’re important.”

He also said that Hillary’s infamous “basket of deplorables” remark didn’t work electorally — which, as post hoc political analysis goes, isn’t exactly Tim Russert material.

“The idea of declaring a whole swath of people ‘deplorables’ is just the most idiotic political calculation, number one, and two, the most — in the Catholic Church, they would call that the sin of pride,” Frank Biden said.

RELATED: Biden Finds a Way To Trash Rush Limbaugh, ‘Conservative Blonde Woman’ Over Gov’t Shutdown

“Who in God’s name am I to say that you have a fundamentally wrong moral position? Talk about lacking humility.”

If Palm Beach Post reporter George Bennett decided to ask a follow-up question regarding Joe Biden’s September remark that a swath of Trump’s supporters were “virulent people, some of them the dregs of society,” he wasn’t charitable enough to include his brother’s response in the published work.

If you want more shockingly prescient analysis from Frank Biden, he also thinks that his brother — currently the unquestioned leader in the 2020 Democrat polls, a man who’s run for president twice and was almost certainly going to do it a third time before the death of his son — will be a candidate next year.

“I think we’re going to run,” Frank Biden told the Post. “You can say that ‘Frank thinks his brother’s going to run.’ Now, he could surprise me. But I know the family’s behind him 100 percent.”

He said the family will meet “very soon” to discuss the candidacy.

“I believe Joe should run. I’m urging him to run and have been for a long, long time,” he said.

“The decision the party has to make is almost an existential one … Are we going to go with someone that everyone implicitly trusts, has confidence in, and no one doubts Joe’s ability to do the job?” he added.

“Who do you think that the disaffected Republicans and the disaffected Democrats that we need to win over to win Pennsylvania, to win Michigan, to win Wisconsin, to win Ohio, to win Florida — as a strictly Machiavellian question, who is best positioned to win those folks back?”

Well, then. Frank Biden doesn’t sound like a terribly self-aware guy. Here’s why that’s problematic: Hillary Clinton has an insanely long memory.

One of the stories that flew under the general radar of the political media as the government shutdown turned was a report from Axios about Hillary Clinton quietly meeting with potential candidates who were kissing her ring and laying the groundwork for a possible endorsement.

“A bunch have picked her brain,” a source described as “a longtime Clinton confidant” told Axios.

“Hillary wants Trump gone,” the source added. “She doesn’t know who’s best able to beat him, but she knows about grueling nomination fights.”

Even if independents and conservatives still view her with some admixture of exasperation and disdain, Hillary still commands a lot of support — and a lot of party machinery — on the Democrat side of the aisle. She also has an obvious desire for some degree of cultural rehabilitation, something endorsing a successful candidate would go a long way toward getting her.

If Hillary were to decide that Joe Biden were the best chance the Democrats have of beating President Trump — or at least the likely winner of the fight, no matter what she did — an endorsement could end the nomination process early.

Biden may have provided no small degree of obloquy to the Clintons in the aftermath of the 2016 loss by implying he would have been a better candidate, but he’s not so prone to lapsus linguae as to continue trashing her if it means avoiding a protracted battle in the primary season.

As for Hillary, Biden is exactly her kind of candidate — the sort of safe, establishment figure who’s just as comfortable spinning platitudes over a burger with voters as he is participating in a Davos Q&A.

I don’t know how much Frank Biden is going to factor into her endorsement calculations, but this interview is clearly going to end up in her inbox with a high-priority header on it.

If Hillary is going to get that cultural rehabilitation out of her endorsement, the last thing she needs is a candidate’s imbecile younger brother giving local newspaper interviews about her various perfidies and then having the whole thing splashed on CNN.

She’d just sooner go with someone — anyone — else and leave the drama about the “existential” crises faced by the Democrats behind.

So, no, Frank Biden isn’t a Malik Obama yet, inasmuch as he’s not trashing his own brother. In political terms, however, one could imagine this loose cannon inflicting far more damage. That should be a reminder to the former vice president:

It’s never too late to send a chatty relative on a cruise.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

Source: Joe Biden’s Brother Trashes Clintons, Claims Much of His Family Voted for Trump

The Clinton Memo That Killed Half a Million People in Syria

“half the population (of Syria) has been displaced, while the World Bank has estimated total war damage at $226 billion, roughly six years’ income for every Syrian man, woman, and child.”

Note: The following article, published at Consortium News, was taken down hours after it was published today (1/11/19) -RI.

A Hillary Clinton memo that Wikileaks made public in 2016 has not gotten the attention it deserves.

It takes us back to 2012 and the early phase of the Syrian war.

At that point, it was largely an internal affair, although Saudi arms shipments were playing a greater and greater role in bolstering rebel forces.  But once the Obama administration decided in favor of intervention, the conflict was quickly internationalized as thousands of holy warriors flooded in from as far away as western China.

The 1,200-word memo by then-Secretary of State Clinton begins with the subject of Iran, an important patron of Syria.

She dismisses any notion that nuclear talks will stop Iran “from improving the crucial part of any nuclear weapons program—the capability to enrich uranium.”  If it does get the bomb, it goes on, Israel will suffer a strategic setback since it will no longer be able to “respond to provocations with conventional military strikes on Syria and Lebanon, as it can today.” Denied the ability to bomb at will, Israel might leave off secondary targets and strike at the main enemy instead.

Consequently, Clinton argues that the U.S. should topple the Assad regime so as to weaken Iran and allay the fears of Israel, which has long regarded the Islamic republic as its primary enemy.  As the memo puts it:

“Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel’s security, it would also ease Israel’s understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly.  Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action could be warranted.”


Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta talks with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at NATO Headquarters in Brussels, April 18, 2012. (DOD photo by Erin A. Kirk-Cuomo)

This document making the case to arm Syrian rebels may have been largely overlooked because of the dates, which appear to be inaccurate.

One line gives the time as “2001-01-01 03:00” even though Clinton was still a New York senator-elect at that point. That date is also out of synch with the timeline of nuclear diplomacy with Iran.

Another contains a State Department case and document number and a date of Nov. 30, 2015.  But that’s incorrect as well since it postdates Clinton’s resignation as secretary of state by better than two and a half years.

Central to the Great Debate

Consequently, anyone stumbling across the memo in the Wikileaks archives would have no idea of how its rather loopy logic figures in the great debate about whether to use force to bring down Syrian President Bashir al-Assad.  But textual clues provide an answer.  The second paragraph refers to nuclear talks with Iran “that began in Istanbul this April and will continue in Baghdad in May,” events that took place in 2012.  The sixth invokes an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour conducted with then-Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak “last week.” Since the interview took place on April 19, 2012, the memo can therefore be dated to the fourth week in April. This is shortly before Clinton joined forces with then-CIA Director David Petraeus to push for an aggressive program of rebel military aid.

Needless to say, Clinton’s skepticism about negotiating with Iran proved to be unwarranted since Iran eventually agreed to shut down its nuclear program.  The memo thus illustrates her hawkishness along with her conviction that Israeli security trumps all other considerations even if it means setting fire to a region that’s been burned over more than once.

But the memo illustrates much else besides: Clinton’s recklessness, her lack of realism and her almost mystical belief that everything will fall neatly into place once the United States flexes its muscle.  Overthrowing Assad would be nothing less than “transformative,” she writes:

“…Iran would be strategically isolated, unable to exert its influence in the Middle East.  The resulting regime in Syria will see the United States as a friend, not an enemy. Washington would gain substantial recognition as fighting for the people in the Arab world, not the corrupt regimes.  For Israel, the rationale for a bolt from the blue attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be eased.  And a new Syrian regime might well be open to early action on the frozen peace talks with Israel.  Hezbollah in Lebanon would be cut off from its Iranian sponsor since Syria would no longer be a transit point for Iranian training, assistance and missiles.”

It was “a low-cost high-payoff approach,” she writes, that would eliminate one enemy, weaken two more, and generate such joy among ordinary Syrians that peace talks between Damascus and Tel Aviv will spring back to life.  The risks were nil.  Since “the Libyan operation had no long-lasting consequences for the region,” the memo says, referring to the overthrow of strongman Muammer Gaddafi six months earlier, the Syrian operation wouldn’t either:


Hillary Clinton meets with Saudi King Abdullah in Riyadh on March 30, 2012. (State Department)

“Some argue that U.S. involvement risks a wider war with Russia.  But the Kosovo example [in which NATO bombed Russian-ally Serbia] shows otherwise.  In that case, Russia had genuine ethnic and political ties to the Serbs, which don’t exist between Russia and Syria, and even then Russia did little more than complain. Russian officials have already acknowledged they won’t stand in the way if intervention comes.”

So, there was nothing to worry about. Sixty-five years of Arab-Israeli conflict would fall by the wayside while Russia remains safely marginalized.

How it Turned Out

Needless to say, that’s not how things turned out.  At that moment, Libya seemed under control.  But three or four months later, it would explode as Western-backed Islamist militias blasted away at one another, imposing strict Sharia law, re-instituting slavery and rolling back decades of social progress.  Once President Barack Obama approved a modified version of the Clinton-Petraeus plan, Syria would plunge into the same abyss as jihadis funded by Saudi Arabia and the other oil monarchies spread sectarian violence and fear.

Clinton’s assumption that the U.S. could neatly and cleanly decapitate the Syrian government without having to worry about broader consequences was little short of deluded.

The notion that ordinary Syrians would fall to their knees in gratitude was ludicrous while her disregard for the intricacies of Syrian politics was astonishing.

Then there’s the memo’s blithe suggestion that Washington “work with regional allies like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar to organize, train, and arm Syrian rebel forces.”

In late 2009, Clinton wrote in another diplomatic memo made public by Wikileaks that “donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.”  So what made her think two years later that the kingdom would not fund Syrian jihadis of precisely the same ilk?

The 2009 memo slammed Qatar for allowing Al Qaeda, the Taliban and other terrorist groups to use the sheikdom “as a fundraising locale.”  So what made her think that a pro-Al Qaeda autocracy would now help Syrians “fight for their freedom,” as the memo puts it?  Wouldn’t Qatar be more likely to remove what little freedom Syrians had left? Of course, it would.

There is a remarkable continuity between the Syria policy that Clinton was proposing and earlier policies in Afghanistan and Libya.  In the first, U.S. military aid wound up flowing to the notorious warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a religious sectarian and raging anti-western xenophobe who nonetheless was “the most efficient at killing Soviets,” as Steve Coll put it in “Ghost Wars,” his bestselling 2004 account of the CIA’s love affair with jihad.

Hekmatyar’s cutthroats wound up with the lion’s share of American arms. More or less the same thing happened in Libya once Clinton persuaded Qatar to join the anti-Gaddafi coalition.  The sheikhdom seized the opportunity to distribute some $400 million to various rebel militias, many of them Islamist.  The Obama administration said nothing in response.


British Fighters with International Freedom Battalion in northern Iraq. (Wikimedia)

Once again, U.S. arms and materiel flowed to the most reactionary elements.  The same would happen in Syria where U.S. and Saudi arms went to the local Al Qaeda affiliate, known as Jabhat al-Nusra, and even to ISIS, as a meticulous report by Conflict Armament Research, a Swiss and EU-funded study group in London, has shown.  (See “Did Obama Arm Islamic State Killers?” Consortium News, Dec. 21, 2017.)

Insurgency Mix  

By August 2012, a secret Defense Intelligence Agency report found that Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Al Qaeda were already “the major forces driving the insurgency” and that the U.S. and Gulf states backed them regardless. Speechwriter Ben Rhodes summed up the problem of “moderate” rebels who were indistinguishable from Al Qaeda in his White House memoir, “The World As It Is.” In that, he writes that “Al Nusra was probably the strongest fighting force within the opposition, and while there were extremist elements in the group, it was also clear that the more moderate opposition was fighting side by side with al Nusra.  I argued that labeling al Nusra as terrorists would alienate the same people we want to help, while giving al Nusra less incentive to avoid extremist affiliations.”

The problem was how to separate the “good” Al Qaeda fighters from the “bad.”  Rhodes later complained when Russian President Vladimir Putin said that he and his fellow Obama officials were “trying to climb a spruce tree naked without scratching our ass.”  This was “smug,” Rhodes says.  But Putin was merely using a colorful expression to say that the policy made no sense; which it didn’t.

The cost, half a dozen years after the Clinton email, is staggering.  As many as 560,000 people have died, half the population has been displaced, while the World Bank has estimated total war damage at $226 billion, roughly six years’ income for every Syrian man, woman, and child. A cockeyed memo thus unleashed a real-life catastrophe that refuses to go away.  It’s a nightmare from which President Donald Trump is struggling to escape in his confused and deluded way and that the Deep State – everyone from arch-neocon John Bolton to “liberal” Nancy Pelosi– is determined to renew.

Daniel Lazare is the author of “The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy” (Harcourt Brace, 1996) and other books about American politics.  He has written for a wide variety of publications from The Nation to Le Monde Diplomatiqueand blogs about the Constitution and related matters at Daniellazare.com.



Source: The Clinton Memo That Killed Half a Million People in Syria

Biden’s family members voted for Trump because they felt slighted by Hillary. Brother reveals gossip as Joe prepares to run.

(Video screenshot)

Failed Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s insulting and demeaning rhetoric during the 2016 presidential election three years ago reportedly offended former Vice President Joe Biden’s relatives so much that they ultimately voted for President Donald Trump instead.

And this despite Trump being one of the former VP’s veritable arch-nemesis, and this despite the former VP repeatedly campaigning on Clinton’s behalf throughout the 2016 election cycle.

This and other revelations were unveiled in an explosive interview last week with Biden’s brother, Frank. According to him, Trump likely wouldn’t even be president now had Biden simply ran.

“We never would have lost Pennsylvania, and all my relatives — the Finnegan family — who voted for Donald Trump because they felt slighted by Hillary and her campaign,” Frank said to the The Palm Beach Post, referencing one of the many Democrat states Clinton lost due to her behavior.

Joe Biden’s Brother Says Family Voted For Trumphttps://t.co/ATXmaerWLI

— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) January 10, 2019

“We never would have not gone to Michigan as the campaign decided not to do because they felt entitled to the votes of those people. Assumptive politics is losing politics. You have to work for every single vote and people have to know individually, collectively and severally that you care about them.”

Clinton skipped or delayed holding rallies and events in several key states that traditionally vote Democrat. Why? Because she arrogantly assumed she was guaranteed (if not owed) victory.

But even this slight paled in comparison to the horrific insult she delivered while speaking at a ritzy fundraiser in New York City on Sept. 9, 2016. It was at this event that the failed Democrat presidential nominee labeled Trump’s supporters a “basket of deplorables.”

“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” she said. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”

Here’s a reminder of what that sounded like:

“The idea of declaring a whole swath of people ‘deplorables’ is just the most idiotic political calculation, number one,” an incensed Frank noted to The Palm Beach Post.

“And two, the most — in the Catholic Church, they would call that the sin of pride. Who in God’s name am I to say that you have a fundamentally wrong moral position? Talk about lacking humility.”

Humility has never been Clinton’s strong suit.

Looking ahead to the upcoming 2020 presidential election, Frank said he strongly believes his older brother should run, though he doubts whether his opinion will have much influence.

“I believe Joe should run. I’m urging him to run and have been for a long, long time,” he said. “You have to understand our family structure. I’m the youngest brother. My sister’s the real boss. And Jill. It’s an Irish matriarchy. They have the greatest influence.”

He further noted that he’d hoped back in 2015 that his brother would run, but that the unexpected death of Biden’s son Beau Biden from cancer had shattered those plans.

“A big factor in Joe Biden’s 2015 decision was the emotional toll of his son Beau Biden’s death from cancer that year. Nearly four years later, the Biden family is ‘healing up really well’ from Beau Biden’s death, Frank Biden said,” The Palm Beach Post reported.

“Joe is in a place spiritually,” Frank said. “What he’s been through and how he’s come out the other side, he has become enormously empathetic. He’s always been an empath.”

“But he’s so empathetic toward people who are hurting. He doesn’t think his tragedy is exclusive to him, that somehow he’s Job. This is an everyman deal.”

Reports have surfaced to suggest Biden didn’t run in 2016 because of other reasons.

Joe Biden reveals why he didn’t run against Trump in 2016 – it looks brutally bad for Hillary https://t.co/DBV1BKAZwx

— Edro-Mojo (@edromojo) November 9, 2017

Will Biden run in 2020, though?

“I think we’re going to run,” Frank opined. “You can say that ‘Frank thinks his brother’s going to run.’ Now, he could surprise me. But I know the family’s behind him 100 percent.”


That’s not good news for conservatives, as polls have shown that the former VP could beat Trump. Of course, he’d first have to win the Democrat primary, and as it stands “None of the Above” is polling significantly better than him. That’s not a good look for anybody.

Regarding a potential 2020 bid, the former vice president has yet to announce his candidacy, though he’s certainly signaled that he might. Is he what the people want, though? That remains unclear, because for every social media user who wants him to run, there’s another who doesn’t.


@JoeBiden please, please pleeeease run in 2020 America needs you

— Aine Walsh (@AineLAFDwifey) January 13, 2019

Really don’t think @JoeBiden should run he & his family already slamming Sec Clinton that’s so not helpful, accurate, or worthwhile! Talk about yourself, your plans , your capabilities please!

— Bren Holiday (@SunnyBlondie) January 13, 2019

Mr. Biden, I always believe that when our loved ones, are about to make their transition, they foresee ahead, I truly believe that’s why your son wanted you to run. Please, help our country heal and bridge the divide.

— Robyn Harriss (@ALLURE555) January 13, 2019

Hey Joe, remember that racially biased crime bill you advocated? You know, the “super-predator” one?

Please don’t run. We need to move forward, not revisit the “border structure” days of the Democratic party.

— Twenty Jornteen (@notnoiseworks) January 12, 2019

@JoeBiden Great to see you at the Tower Hill meet today, and one more thing….please run!!

— Steven Aubuchon (@sraubuchon) January 13, 2019

I love @JoeBiden but please, please, please, pass the torch. Don’t run. Also please @SenSanders . Invest in younger leaders please. Don’t run.

— Joseph Henley (@henljo2) January 10, 2019

Source: Biden’s family members voted for Trump because they felt slighted by Hillary. Brother reveals gossip as Joe prepares to run.

Libs try to spin ABC-WaPo poll as pushback against wall. Fox shows unreported victory is really Trump’s

(Video screenshot)

Despite new polls taken by liberal giants that seem to bode badly for President Donald Trump in regard to the ongoing border security/government shutdown fight, not all is as it seems, according to Griff Jenkins.

Speaking Sunday morning on “Fox & Friends,” Jenkins rightly noted that while the numbers appear at first glance to bode badly for the president, a deeper look suggests otherwise.

Take for instance a new ABC News/Washington Post poll that shows a 54 percent majority of Americans oppose the border wall that the president seeks to build across the southern U.S. border.

“Look at the numbers,” Jenkins implored. Look at the number of Republicans standing firm. 87% among Republicans supporting the wall, you know, that’s approaching 90%. That is a very strong number.”

“And if you go back and look quickly at the increase in the current poll, you have basically a plus-8 gain of support of all voters but then a negative 9 drop. So the movement, the tide is all moving towards the support for a wall, and that is fundamentally, undeniably a problem for the Democrat position that would suggest eventually President Trump will win the battle.”


Jenkins was right. Though 54 percent represents a majority of Americans, it also represents a stunning nine percentage point drop from the 63 percent opposition recorded last year.

And though the overall support for the wall stands at just 42 percent, this itself represents a notable eight percentage point increase from the 34 percent recorded last year.

Support for the wall has, in fact, reached an “all-time high,” according to the Washington Examiner, suggesting Jenkins was right that “the tide is all moving towards the support for a wall.”

He’s not the only one to have taken note of this. Conservative commentator Kurt Schlicter hinted at it during a Fox News debate Saturday night, saying, “The longer the shutdown goes, the better. At the end, I think Donald Trump’s going to win.”

The polling data does seem to suggest — as Schlichter and Jenkins have both noted — that the longer the shutdown continues, and the more time Trump has to explain the need for a border wall to the public, the more in-line with his tough but fair immigration policies the public inevitably becomes.

Listen to some of Schlichter’s debate below:

The demonstrably left-wing and frequently factually inaccurate media disagree.

“Fox’s Griff Jenkins Says Poll Showing Most Americans Oppose Wall Means Trump ‘Will Eventually Win,’” reads a headline at Mediaite designed to mock the Fox news co-host.

The author of the piece argues that Jenkins’s argument is invalid because polling data from another pollster shows that approval for the wall has always been between the 30s and 40s:


“A Gallup poll taken weeks after Trump’s inauguration showed 38 percent support for the wall. If Trump gains two percent a year, he’d ‘win’ the battle sometime after the 2020 election.”

Except that, of course, is not how polls work. It’s improper and lazy to compare the poll results of one pollster to the poll results of another pollster. Mediaite should know better. That it doesn’t might explain why so many social media users believe it peddles “fake news.”

Many far-leftists on social media nevertheless bought Mediaite’s false argument and completely invalid headline hook, line and sinker, as evidenced by the tweets below:

Next up on Delusion TV, Santa joins us!! Stay tuned!!!!

— Totalblamblam🎀 (@Totalblamblamm) January 13, 2019

Huh? If most oppose, how does he win?

— #DitchMitch (@SharronSmiley) January 13, 2019

Logic is dead.

— joy 😊 (@kickonct) January 13, 2019

LOL. Delusional.

— Peter (@BurgerDogBoy) January 13, 2019

It’s a cult

— Leeman67 (@ljbryner1967) January 13, 2019

But none of what Mediaite asserted or its readers are tweeting negates Jenkins’ core contention, which is that support for the wall is increasing, while opposition for it is decreasing. That’s a fact, and facts don’t usually care about false, misleading narratives.

Thankfully, not everybody bought into the purveyor’s false narrative. Some — including even some liberals — were sensible enough to recognize the truth.


So if support for the wall is increasing, but still a minority, does this mean Trump’s use of Hitler’s play book is working???

America changed the course of WWII!!! Has America not learned from the past???

This does not bode well, and plays into Russia’s hands.#Resist https://t.co/0amNaJTsB9

— Dave Hansen (@Davhansen2163) January 13, 2019

Well this is disturbing, support for Trump’s senseless border wall is increasing: pic.twitter.com/twnQH9hu3Z

— TheResistance Report (@AntiTrumpReport) January 13, 2019

What ist so hard to understand is that the support for the wall is increasing while we see more and more evidence of the US Administration’s incompetence and their lies.

— HAP (@HilviP) January 13, 2019

Of course, conservatives knew the truth all along:

Support for the wall is actually increasing though.

— AJ Dahlgren (@ajdahlgren) January 13, 2019

Yet support for a wall is increasing. https://t.co/wuKJGC7tX8

— Carl Gottlieb (@c_cgottlieb) January 13, 2019

Haha – NOT! Total BS!

SUPPORT for wall went UP!

Thank goodness for President Trump! 😊😊😊

— CoVFeFe SauCe (@jbcovfefe) January 13, 2019

Source: Libs try to spin ABC-WaPo poll as pushback against wall. Fox shows unreported victory is really Trump’s

DNC Chair Won’t Say ‘What Changed’ From 2006 or 2013 When Dems Voted for Border Security

On Wednesday morning, Fox News anchor Bill Hemmer asked DNC Chair Tom Perez “what changed” to convince Democrats who voted for increased border security in 2006 and 2013 to resolutely oppose President Donald Trump on a wall now. Perez did not answer the question, and attempted to combat the idea that the difference has more to do with personality than policy.

“You passed a lot of bills. [In] 2013, [Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)] voted for more border security. [Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)] voted for more border security. [Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)] voted for it.  2006, Hillary Clinton voted for it, Barack Obama voted for it; Schumer voted for it again going back 12 years,” Hemmer noted.

“The Democrats believe in meaningful border security,” Perez admitted. “I’m proud of the work I did under Barack Obama to make sure that we were securing our borders and countering violent extremism at home.”

“So what in the world changed from 2013? What changed from 2006?” Hemmer, the anchor of “America’s Newsroom,” pressed. “What the White House will say, ‘if the president says “purple,” you’ll say “blue,” and it’s really not about policy, it’s about personality.'”

Perez disagreed with the idea that Democratic opposition on the wall is about personality rather than policy.

“Again, Democrats have always believed in strong border security but we want smart border security,” he insisted. “Building a wall is not smart border security.” He suggested Obama-era programs like the “Countering Violent Extremism” initiative instead.

He went on to note that for President Trump, “building a wall is fulfilling a campaign promise. That is not securing our borders.”

Whether building a wall is smart policy or not, the DNC chair is right to say this was a fundamental campaign promise for Trump. The president has been willing to decrease the amount of funding he requests for the wall. Why won’t Democrats just agree to a deal for the $5 billion? In terms of the federal debt, that’s pocket change.

Source: DNC Chair Won’t Say ‘What Changed’ From 2006 or 2013 When Dems Voted for Border Security

Ron Paul: Deep State ‘more powerful than presidents’

Rick Sanchez reports on the combination of big media, political establishments, and military and corporate interests whose power exceeds that of the President. He discusses this “deep state” with former congressman Dr. Ron Paul. Then RT America correspondent Michele Greenstein joins to explain how these interests undermine democratic governments for the sake of profit.

Trump Triggers Dems With Epic Takedown Of Their Hypocrisy

President Donald Trump tore into Democrats on Twitter on Sunday over the border wall.

He even predicted that Hispanics would soon join Republicans in the fight.

“Democrats are saying that DACA is not worth it and don’t want to include in talks. Many Hispanics will be coming over to the Republican side, watch!” the president said.

Democrats are saying that DACA is not worth it and don’t want to include in talks. Many Hispanics will be coming over to the Republican side, watch!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 13, 2019

“The building of the Wall on the Southern Border will bring down the crime rate throughout the entire Country!” he said.

The building of the Wall on the Southern Border will bring down the crime rate throughout the entire Country!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 13, 2019

“I’m in the White House, waiting. The Democrats are everywhere but Washington as people await their pay. They are having fun and not even talking!” he wrote.

I’m in the White House, waiting. The Democrats are everywhere but Washington as people await their pay. They are having fun and not even talking!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 13, 2019

Are Democrats hypocrites?

“The damage done to our Country from a badly broken Border – Drugs, Crime and so much that is bad – is far greater than a Shutdown, which the Dems can easily fix as soon as they come back to Washington!” he said.

The damage done to our Country from a badly broken Border – Drugs, Crime and so much that is bad – is far greater than a Shutdown, which the Dems can easily fix as soon as they come back to Washington!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 13, 2019

“Thousands of illegal aliens who have committed sexual crimes against children are right now in Texas prisons. Most came through our Southern Border. We can end this easily – We need a Steel Barrier or Wall. Walls Work! John Jones, Texas Department of Public Safety,” he said.

Thousands of illegal aliens who have committed sexual crimes against children are right now in Texas prisons. Most came through our Southern Border. We can end this easily – We need a Steel Barrier or Wall. Walls Work! John Jones, Texas Department of Public Safety. @FoxNews

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 13, 2019

But as predicted, Democrats fired back.

If this is such a public emergency, why did you completely ignore it for 2 entire years?

Why did Republicans vote against the $25 BILLION Democrats idiotically offered you in border wall funding last year?

— William LeGate (@williamlegate) January 13, 2019

Those crimes are disgusting, but regular Americans commit those crimes at the same or greater rates. To Alienate an entire nationality because of your bigotry is wrong. We need border security but we do not need a $20 billion wall.

— Brian Krassenstein (@krassenstein) January 13, 2019

Thousands of Americans have killed children using semi-automatic assault rifles. This is a much larger national emergency and humanitarian crisis than immigrants seeking refuge in America. Use that money to help stop gun violence instead of building a wall!

— Ed Krassenstein (@EdKrassen) January 13, 2019

oh good, America’s Racist Uncle™ is live-tweeting Fox News again. talk about a self-perpetuating feedback loop of delusional fantasy. Putin sure got his money’s worth out of this credulous old rube, didn’t he?

— Jeff Tiedrich (@itsJeffTiedrich) January 13, 2019

You are absolutely disgusting!https://t.co/PZiYEU5NQ6

— Ryan Hill (@RyanHillMI) January 13, 2019

Source: Trump Triggers Dems With Epic Takedown Of Their Hypocrisy

Dems embark on Caribbean junket in chartered jet, party with ‘Hamilton’ cast, amid gvmt shutdown

With Speaker Nancy Pelosi boldly pulling off a Hawaii vacation during the partial government shutdown with little media fanfare, 30 Democratic members of Congress surely gave little thought to taking part in a winter retreat in Puerto Rico.

The lawmakers, their families and lobbyists traveled to the Caribbean island over the weekend to attend the Congressional Hispanic Caucus BOLD PAC gathering in San Juan, according to Fox News. This coming amid a shutdown that has no end in sight and the party embracing federal employees not receiving paychecks to gain a PR edge over President Donald Trump, who is determined to shore up border security.

The agenda included a special performance of the hit Broadway show “Hamilton,” not that the Democrats didn’t tack on a working element to give the appearance of official business, with a planned meeting with Puerto Rican officials to discuss Hurricane Maria cleanup efforts.

Not that there wasn’t time for a little fun in the sun — the gathering took place at a seaside resort where rooms run around $429 a night, Fox News reported.

While it’s not clear who the 30 Democrats attending are, the guest list appears to be a tightly guarded secret, Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., was spotted on the beach talking with a bikini babe.

The photo brings to mind the media reaction when former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was caught on a state beach while it was closed to the public during a state budget standoff in 2017 that resulted in a government shutdown.

…with the reaction to the Democratic senator paling in comparison.

But don’t worry, the Democrats are “closely monitoring” events and will brush off the sand and rush back to Washington if needed.

“As our Bold PAC members make their way to Puerto Rico for this important weekend — the largest contingency of House Democrats to visit Puerto Rico where they’ll be hearing from Commonwealth and local elected officials about the ongoing recovery efforts — we will be closely monitoring the situation in Washington,” Bold PAC Chair Rep. Tony Cardenas said in a statement, according to Fox News. “If there is any progress by Senate Republicans or the White House to reopen the federal government, then we will act accordingly.”

Conservative actor James Woods was quick to note that Sen. Menendez, fresh off the Justice Department dropping bribery and corruption charges against him, was just having a “conference” — wink, wink — on the beach with a “colleague.”

Here’s a sampling of other reactions from Twitter:

Source: Dems embark on Caribbean junket in chartered jet, party with ‘Hamilton’ cast, amid gvmt shutdown

Lindsey Graham: ‘Astonishing’ Trump Investigated as Russian Agent — ‘How Could the FBI Do That?’

On this weekend’s broadcast of “Fox News Sunday,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) commented on a New York Times report that the FBI opened an investigation into President Donald Trump after he fired FBI Director James Comey. Graham said, “Number one, that story came from somebody who leaked it with an agenda, so I’d like to know who leaked it because they have an agenda not very friendly to President Trump, and I, for one, don’t trust what I read in The New York Times.” He added, “I’m going to ask the FBI director, ‘Was there a counterintelligence investigation opened up regarding the president as being a potential agent of the Russians?’ I find it astonishing, and to me, it tells me a lot about the people running the FBI, McCabe and that crowd. I don’t trust them as far as I can throw them. If this really did happen, Congress needs to know about it. And what I want to do is make sure, how could the FBI do that? What kind of checks and balances are there?” Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN

Source: Lindsey Graham: ‘Astonishing’ Trump Investigated as Russian Agent — ‘How Could the FBI Do That?’