Today the House Judiciary Committee heard testimony from John Dean, the former Nixon White House Counsel who went to jail for his role in Watergate. What John Dean knows about Russiagate is anyone’s guess. News reports indicate that he described “six striking parallels” between Watergate and the failed Trump/Russia investigation. For example, Nixon fired Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, while Trump fired James Comey. Got that?
Here is a really striking parallel between Watergate and the Trump/Russia investigation: both Nixon and Trump were Republicans. One more: the Washington Post and the New York Times were out to get both Nixon and Trump. How striking can a parallel get?
House Democrats are making fools of themselves, but it isn’t clear whether they know it or not. Their main purpose seems to be to produce headlines in obliging newspapers (the Washington Post and the New York Times, for instance) where “President Trump” is in the same sentence as “impeachment” or, if they are quoting Nancy Pelosi, “locked up.” I doubt that there is a single voter left who will be influenced by such partisan heavy breathing.
President Trump has kept his promise to strike Syria in response to the recent chemical attack launched by the Assad regime. Tonight, U.S. air power attacked three Syrian targets.
The first was a research center believed to be used to develop chemical weapons. The second was a chemical weapons storage facility. The third was a command center believed to be used in connection with chemical warfare.
The U.S. acted together with the French and the British. This was a joint operation.
Unlike last April, we used manned aircraft in this attack, along with missiles. The Syrians countered by firing surface-to-air missiles.
Secretary of Defense Mattis said he is not aware at this time (about an hour after the attack) of any loss of U.S. personnel or aircraft. He was not prepared to say whether the Syrians hit any of our missiles or to assess the damage we caused. The Pentagon expects to provide information on these matters tomorrow morning.
Before attacking, we engaged in “deconfliction” talks with the Russians regarding the air space we would be using. However, we did not identify the targets we planned to strike.
This attack differed from the one last year in that, instead of targeting an air field, we targeted what can be described as infrastructure. The attack was also on a somewhat larger scale. This time we hit three targets, not just one. And, according to the Pentagon, we used about twice the amount of weaponry.
The attack was limited, though. It was not a massive strike.
Mattis emphasized that we were constrained by our desire not to endanger civilians. Apparently, the three targets were chosen over other elements of Syrian weapons infrastructure because we thought that hitting them carried less risk of civilian casualties.
I infer that the Trump administration construed Assad’s latest chemical attack as strike two. The next Syrian attack — strike three — will likely produce a large-scale U.S. response.
I hope the Syrians and the Russians draw the same inference.
Syria: US, UK and France launch air strikes in response to chemical attack
Witnesses in Damascus report loud bangs moments after Donald Trump says he has ordered strikes in retaliation for the chemical attack on Douma
The US, UK and France have launched air strikes against what they allege are Syrian chemical weapons facilities in response to chemical weapons attack in a Damascus suburb a week ago.
The Pentagon said the air strikes, which began at 4am Syrian time, involved planes and ship-launched missiles, more than a hundred weapons in all. Officials named three targets: a scientific research centre in Damascus, a chemical weapons storage facility west of Homs, and another storage site and command post nearby.
“Right now, we have no additional attacks planned” the US defence secretary, James Mattis, said. “This is a one-time shot.”
However, in a televised address from the White House earlier to announce the strikes, Donald Trump said the US and its allies would strike again if there were more chemical weapons attacks by the regime of Bashar al-Assad.
“We are prepared to sustain this response until the Syrian regime stops its use of prohibited chemical agents,” he said. Referring to last Saturday’s chemical weapons attack reported to have killed over 70 people, Trump said. “These are not actions of a man, they are crimes of a monster instead.”
After Trump finished his seven-minute address, Theresa May and Emmanuel Macron made separate announcements of British and French participation, stressing that the strikes were limited to Syrian regime chemical facilities, and had no wider goals.
Explosions were reported in Damascus moments after Trump’s address.
The attack came on the eve of a planned visit by inspectors from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to the site of last week’s chemical weapons attacks, the Damascus suburb of Douma. The US, UK and France had announced they had reached their own conclusion that the Syrian regime was responsible, an accusation denied by Damascus and Russia, which claimed on Friday the attack had been staged by British intelligence.
Mattis, who had said on Thursday that the US was still looking at the evidence, insisted on Friday night that he was “absolutely confident” that the regime was responsible for use of poison gas in Douma. He said there was clear evidence of the use of chlorine, but “we are not certain about sarin right now”.
Mattis said that the “Assad regime clearly did not get the message last year” when the US launched a Tomahawk missile strike at a desert airbase following a poison gas attack in April 2017. On that occasion, 57 missiles were fired. Mattis said slightly more than double that total were used in the airstrikes overnight.
“This time, our allies and we have struck harder,” the defence secretary said. “Together we have sent a clear message to Assad and his murderous lieutenants that they should not perpetrate another chemical weapons attack for which they will be held accountable.”
The French president, Emmanuel Macron, confirmed that France was involved in the air strikes, saying the French role would be limited to Syria’s chemical weapons facilities.
“We cannot tolerate the recurring use of chemical weapons, which is an immediate danger for the Syrian people and our collective security,” a statement from the Elysee presidential office said.
In London, Theresa May issued a statement about British participation in the air strikes.
“This evening I have authorised British armed forces to conduct co-ordinated and targeted strikes to degrade the Syrian Regime’s chemical weapons capability and deter their use,” the prime minister said in a written statement from Downing Street.
Like Trump a few minutes earlier, May stressed that the aims of the intervention were limited to stopping chemical weapons use, for humanitarian reasons, and to uphold the international norm outlawing chemical weapon use.
“We have sought to use every possible diplomatic channel to achieve this.But our efforts have been repeatedly thwarted,” May said, pointing to a Russian veto at the UN security council on a proposal to set up a new investigative body for chemical weapons incidents in Syria.
“So there is no practicable alternative to the use of force to degrade and deter the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian Regime. This is not about intervening in a civil war. It is not about regime change.”
Trump addressed some of his remarks to the Syrian regime’s principal external backers, Russia and Iran.
“What kind of nation wants to be associated with the mass murder of men, women and children?” he asked. “Russia must decide if it will continue down this dark path or join civilised nations as a force for peace.”
The decision to launch air strikes in response to last Saturday’s chemical weapons attack in a rebel-held district of Damascus was fraught with risks. There are Russian and Iranian forces in bases across Syrian and substantial Russian air defences in the west of the country. Russian officials had threatened to use those defences.
The US defence secretary, James Mattis, had expressed concerns that air strikes could lead a situation “escalating out of control”. The US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Joseph Dunford, said that the targets had been chosen very carefully.
“It was the best of years, it was the worst of years.
To hear some folks tell it, 2017 marked a hideous cataclysm in the affairs of man. “So long 2017, you won’t be missed,” wrote Robert Schlesinger in US News & World Report. “Little went well in 2017,” this sage confided in his threnody, “but maybe 2018 will be better.”
Mel Robbins, writing for CNN, sounded a similar note. “This year,” Robbins wrote, “I heard so many people ask, ‘Is this really happening?’” 2017 was “bizarre,” an “alternate reality.”
What happened in 2017 to mark it out as a year that will live in infamy? Dear Reader, I hope that you are sitting down. You will hardly believe the hideous truth. Quaff a bit of brandy. Have the smelling salts at hand. What was the unspeakable reality that sent almost the entire U.S. media, the academic establishment in toto, nearly all of Hollywood, and Democratic politicians from Washington state to Florida into hysterical mourning? Are you ready? Steady on. Take a deep breath. OK, here it is.
Someone those repositories of virtue did not favor was elected president of the United States in a free, open, democratic election. Can you believe it? Their candidate lost. Even worse, the opposing candidate was elected without their permission, over their strenuous objections, unremitting ridicule, and against their hermetically sealed certitude that such a thing was impossible, impossible Kemo Sabe!
Now you know the worst. The 2016 presidential election worked as the Constitution said it was supposed to work, not the way Hollywood millionaires, Ivy-educated pundits, angry feminists, or partisan opponents wanted it to work.
There was other bad news in 2017. On November 8, 2016, the Dow Jones industrial average closed at 18,332. “Little went well” this year, so it is no surprise that the market closed on Friday, December 23 at 24,754. In other words, the market rose 6,422 points, or 35 percent, in little over a year. I’m told that represents more than $6 trillion in shareholder value. Horrible!
There were other terrible things in 2017. The United States, thanks in part to the exploitation of fracking technology, is now the world’s largest energy producer. Oil prices, to the chagrin of the Middle Eastern petrostates, and to Russia, are less than half what they were just a few years ago. (That’s one way the cunning Donald Trump kowtows to Vladimir Putin, by supporting policies that enhance America’s energy production.)
“Little went well in 2017,” quoth the scion of Arthur “see-no-evil-among-the-Kennedys” Schlesinger, except that unemployment is at 4.1 percent, consumer confidence is at a 17-year high, and 1.7 million jobs have been added over the course of this annus horribilis.
“Little went well in 2017”—unless, that is, you think that GDP over 3 percent is a good thing or that cutting 16 business-strangling regulations for every one new federal regulation is something to write home about.
“Little went well in 2017,” especially when you consider that the American military, with a $100 billion increase in its budget, is modernizing and strengthening. Meanwhile, illegal immigration is down more than 50 percent, even though Trump’s promised border wall has yet to be built.
Really to understand why Schlesinger fils could write that “little went well in 2017,” you have to understand that the tax-reform bill that Trump signed last week was “the worst bill since the Fugitive Slave Act” of 1850. Nancy Pelosi was not so cautious or understated in her assessment. The bill, according to her, is “the worst bill in the history of the United States Congress,” “Armageddon,” “ the end of the world.” Former Obama functionary Larry Summers, noting that the bill repeals Obamacare’s provision that forces people to buy insurance or pay a fine, predicted that 10,000 people a year would die because of the bill. In fact, the bill, by cutting corporate taxes from 35 to 21 percent, will spur economic growth which will create jobs, which will increase America’s prosperity. America’s middle class are the chief beneficiaries. The new plan doubles the standard deduction to $12,000—$24,000 for families—and also doubles the child tax credit from $1000 to $2000 per sprog. While the new act keeps seven individual tax categories—Trump wanted to reduce it to 4—it lowers the rate of all seven, maxing out now at 37 percent instead of 39.6 as before. Look at your paycheck in February: you’ll see the difference.
“Little went well in 2017,” except that the United States now has an ardently pro-American president who puts the country’s interests, not the interests of the permanent bureaucracy and its media and academic echo chambers, first….. “
How does that work on the ground? Donald Trump, in fulfillment of a campaign promise, announces that the United States will move its embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. The United Nations goes into full snit mode. The Security Council votes against the plan, and the United States vetoes that resolution. Then the General Assembly votes to declare the plan “null and void” by a margin of 128 to 9 (with 35 abstentions). The votes, like most things the UN does, is utterly meaningless, but Nikki Haley, our ambassador to the UN, warned that the United States would be taking note of who voted against us. The first fallout was just announced: the United States will be cutting its contribution to the UN by $285 million. “We will no longer let the generosity of the American people be taken advantage of or remain unchecked,” she said. Good for her. Surely that’s one little thing that went well in 2017. I expect a lot more of the same in 2018, though I don’t expect senile politicians like Nancy Pelosi or wimpy commentators like Robert Schlesinger to notice.”
Nikki Haley Threatens U.N. With Defunding Over Resolution Condemning U.S. Jerusalem Decision
by Tim Hains at realclearpolitics:
Please listen to Ambassador Haley’s United Nation’s speech for the Century exposing the Body’s arrogance objecting to President Trump’s “unwussy” announcement our United States will be building its Israeli Embassy facilities IN JERUSALEM!
NIKKI HALEY: “The United States is by far, the single largest contributor to the United Nations and its agencies.
We do this in part to advance our values and our interests. When that happens, our participation in the UN produces great good for the world… We hold outlaw regimes accountable. We do this because it represents who we are. It is our American way.
But I will be honest with you, when we make generous contributions to the UN, we also have a legitimate expectation that our goodwill is recognized and respected.
When a nation is singled out for an attack in this organization, that nation is disresepected. What’s more, that nation is asked to pay for the privilege of being disrespected.
In the case of the United States, we are asked to pay more than anyone else for that dubious privilege.
Unlike some U.N, member countries, the United States government is answerable to its people, as such we have an obligation to acknowledge when our political and financial capital is being poorly spent.
We have an obligation to demand more for our investment, and if our investment fails, we have an obligation to spend our resources in more productive ways. Those are the thoughts that come to mind when we consider the resolution before us today. ……..” Please read on below:
What is an Obama and/or Post Obama Democrat title these days of Leftism and it Black racist, Feminazi, Open Borders, and atheistic, New York Times’ “University” America?
In “TRUTH”, Truth is not a highly valued virtue among our contemporary American feminist of all sexes, races, shapes and sizes. Please read Kirsten Gillibrand “change of heart”, now that that pair of Clinton creeps of endless descriptions have become losers. Do read anything Hillary….or watch her every move or listen to her noise at nearly anytime. What about Hillary’s New York residue in the U.S. Senate up to these days?
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who holds the seat formerly occupied by Hillary Clinton, said today that Bill Clinton should have resigned the presidency after his inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky came to light. That’s mighty enlightened of her.
But what took her so long to reach, or articulate, this view? The answer is, it took the fall of Clintons plus a crucial Senate race in which the Republican is being accused of serious sexual misconduct.
We know that Gillibrand would never have called out Bill Clinton if he still wielded influence. We know this because she didn’t when he did. To the contrary, just last year, she wrote: “I. . .was truly honored that President Bill Clinton campaigned for me in my first run for Congress in 2006.”
Attempting to explain her alleged change of heart about Clinton, Gillibrand said: “Things have changed today, and I think under those circumstances there should be a very different reaction.” This dodge is unpersuasive, as I argued at length here.”
TRUMP MOVES AGAINST NORTH KOREA, PRESS IS CONFUSED
by John Hinderaker at PowerLine:
“Today President Trump issued an executive order that imposes financial sanctions on those who do business with North Korea:
President Trump announced new U.S. financial sanctions Thursday that target North Korea and foreign companies or individuals that do business with the rogue nation….
The new penalties seek to leverage the dominance of the U.S. financial system by forcing nations to choose whether to do business with the United States or the comparatively tiny economy of North Korea.
The main target, I take it, is China, and there are preliminary indications that the Chinese may be responding:
Significantly, Trump also said that Chinese President Xi Jinping had ordered Chinese banks to cease conducting business with North Korean entities. Trump praised Xi, calling the move “very bold” and “somewhat unexpected.”
The administration was careful not to over-sell the move, saying that it won’t change the Kim regime’s goals and attitudes. Rather, the objective is to slow down North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs by starving them, partially, of funding.
One might think that liberal reporters, who pretend to think that President Trump might launch missiles at North Korea at any moment, would applaud Trump’s latest move, but–just kidding. No one expected that.
Today U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley gave a press briefing in New York. Reporters were aware that on October 15, President Trump will report to Congress on Iran’s compliance, or lack thereof, with Obama’s nuclear deal. Trump will either certify, or decline to certify, Iran’s compliance. He will also report on Iran’s nuclear program, its ballistic missiles work, and its support for terrorism. Here are the relevant questions and Ambassador Haley’s answers. Note how the reporters misapprehend the relationship between the current North Korea crisis and the Iran deal:
Q The German Foreign Minister said today that any disavowal of the Iran Deal would reduce the likelihood of getting any similar disarmament deal with North Korea. Do you share those concerns that any actions on the Iran Deal might reduce the possibility of getting a deal with North Korea?
And separately, as a point of clarification, do you support a full oil embargo on North Korea?
AMBASSADOR HALEY: So I think let’s go back to Iran in the first place. What I will tell you is, a lot of countries are going to have their opinions on whether the U.S. should stay in the deal or not. But those countries don’t have Iranians saying “death to America.” They’re not saying “death to Germany.” They’re not saying all of those things. What we can see is terrorist attacks happening everywhere with ties to Iran. And that’s something we need to be careful about.
And so it has never moved the U.S. to care about what other countries say. What does move the President is, are we doing everything in the best interest — security interest for the American people. And that’s what you’re seeing is playing out.
In terms of comparing Iran to North Korea, that’s exactly what we’re doing, is we had so many bad deals with North Korea and everybody looked the other way. And every time they broke that deal, they looked the other way. Well, where are we now? They now have a hydrogen bomb. They now have ICBM. So if we don’t do something and we make the same mistakes we made with North Korea, we will be dealing with Iran that has nuclear weapons and ballistic missile technology. And so that’s the concern and that’s what we’re trying to do with that.
The point seems blindingly obvious–let’s not repeat the mistakes we made with North Korea in the case of Iran–but reporters (and Democrats generally) don’t seem to get it. More:
Q Ambassador, how can the U.S. maintain its diplomatic credibility and get a nuclear deal with North Korea when it is willing to consider blowing up, damaging, putting in peril the existing diplomatic deal with Iran on its program? Doesn’t this undermine U.S. credibility?
To a liberal, “credibility” means reliably and consistently being a sucker. Ambassador Haley knocks this one out of the park:
AMBASSADOR HALEY: It does not undermine U.S. credibility. What it shows is that the United States is going to always watch out for its people, and that just because there was some agreement that was agreed to — the smartest thing any country can do is go back and look at it and say, “is it working”; not have too much pride to say, “Oh, I signed it, I have to continue to be a cheerleader.” Is it working?
And I’ll ask you, do you think that deal is working when Iran continues to test ballistic missiles? Do you think that deal is working when they are supporting terrorists everywhere, from Lebanon to Yemen to Syria to Iraq? Do you think it’s still working? And do you think it’s still working when they’re smuggling arms and now working with North Korea? Is that in the best interest of the United States?
I would question that. Because what you’re looking at is a country that says “death to America,” working with other countries that may also want the same thing. And the President has the responsibility to make sure nothing happens to Americans. And I think that’s what he’s trying to do.
When the Democratic Party’s representatives get chewed up like that, it is a good day for the Trump administration, and for America.”
“There is a deep irony in the fact that Democrats are hysterically demanding investigations of President Trump and his campaign team, and in fact multiple investigations are now in progress, even though there is zero evidence that anyone associated with the president has done anything wrong. On the other hand, we now know for certain that the Obama administration weaponized the intelligence agencies in order to use them against political opponents, in a manner that is unprecedented, highly dangerous to our democracy, and criminal.
This scandal, which dwarfs anything of which the Trump team is even suspected, has been exposed and lies largely in plain sight for all to see. Yet it has generally been greeted with yawns, if acknowledged at all, by politicians and commentators.
At USA Today, Glenn Reynolds provides a primer on the Obama scandal:
In 1972, some employees of President Nixon’s re-election committee were caught when they broke into the Democratic National Committee headquarters to plant a bug. This led to Nixon’s resignation and probably would have led to his felony prosecution had he not been pardoned by his successor, Gerald Ford.
But if a single bugging of the political opposition is enough to bring down a presidency — and maybe lead to an unprecedented criminal prosecution of a former president — then what are we to make of the recently unveiled Obama administration program of massively spying on political opponents in violation of clearly established law?
Because that’s what was unveiled last week.
Glenn goes on to explain the safeguards that supposedly surround spying by the National Security Agency. But the Obama administration flouted these safeguards, and then lied about its actions.
A report from journalists John Solomon and Sara Carter last week, based on recently declassified documents, exposed what went on. As Solomon and Carter write:
More than 5%, or one out of every 20, searches seeking upstream Internet data on Americans inside the NSA’s so-called Section 702 database violated the safeguards President Obama and his intelligence chiefs vowed to follow in 2011, according to one classified internal report reviewed by Circa. …
The normally supportive court censured administration officials, saying that the failure to disclose the extent of the violations earlier amounted to an “institutional lack of candor,” and that the improper searches constituted a “very serious Fourth Amendment issue,” according to a recently unsealed court document dated April 26.
A respected federal judge, serving on the FISA court, has leveled a very serious charge against Barack Obama and his administration–more serious than any charge that was made, let alone proved, against Richard Nixon. The Obama administration was guilty of an “institutional lack of candor,” which is a polite way of saying that it lied to the court about what it was doing. And what it was doing, was violating the constitutional rights of Americans. Donald Trump and his associates have been accused of nothing even remotely as serious.
Solomon and Carter continued:
The admitted violations undercut one of the primary defenses that the intelligence community and Obama officials have used in recent weeks to justify their snooping into incidental NSA intercepts about Americans. … The American Civil Liberties Union said the newly disclosed violations are some of the most serious to ever be documented and strongly call into question the U.S. intelligence community’s ability to police itself and safeguard Americans’ privacy as guaranteed by the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful search and seizure.
Glenn concludes that the scandal raises serious questions about whether the “intelligence community” can continue to operate as it has in the past, and whether it deserves the support of Americans:
This debacle also raises serious questions about the viability of our existing “intelligence community.” In the post-World War II era, we gave massive power to the national security apparatus. In part, that power was granted in the belief that professionalism and patriotism would lead people in those agencies to refuse to let their work be used for partisan political purposes.
It now seems apparent that we overestimated the patriotism and professionalism of the people in these agencies, who allowed them to be politically weaponized by the Obama administration. That being true, if we value democracy, can we permit them to exist in their current form?
That’s a decision that President Trump and Congress will have to face. Ironically, they may be afraid to — for fear that intelligence agencies will engage in further targeted political leaks.
The Department of Justice needs to get to the bottom of Obama’s abuse of the intelligence agencies and the FBI. That abuse was criminally compounded when Obama administration officials leaked classified information to the Washington Post and the New York Times in order to damage political opponents. We know for certain that felonies have been committed, so someone should go to jail.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions needs to ask: What did President Obama know, and when did he know it? Who else in his administration was responsible for the scandal? Where criminal prosecution is warranted, it is up to Justice to bring the cases.
More broadly, once it has enacted tax reform, Obamacare repeal and other top priorities, Congress should set investigations in motion. The public needs to know not only who committed crimes, but how deep the corruption went inside the Obama administration. And Congress needs to address, seriously, the question whether our politicized intelligence agencies can continue to exist in their present form.
As for President Trump, firing James Comey didn’t go anywhere near far enough. Heads should roll at the CIA, the NSA and the FBI. Those who are tainted with the abuses that took place during the Obama administration should be shown the door and, where crimes have been committed, prosecuted.”
There are so many major frauds both national and international perpetrated by the Feminized Left in our 21st century, it is hard to claim which is the worst. What they do have in common is ALL of these Criminal organizations are built and sold by the Fascist Left.
“Black Lives Matter” is primarily an American fraud allowing leftists to rape, pillage, and burn and such without retribution, indeed, quite the contrary. Black Lives Matter is published universally in American leftist media’s fake news as being “heroic”, worthy of our deepest JudaicChristian feelings of righteousness, sympathy and money.
Climate change fraud is a scam relying upon the growing, nearly universal ignorance among the populations of the world of the out doors and the out doors’ yesterdays.
THE OBAMA, GLORIA STEINEM AND HILLARY LEFTISTS CHERISH IGNORANCE beginning with their own. “Too much knowledge is a dangerous thing”…is profoundly cherished….. These fascists and friends are organized and designed for one purpose…..TO DICTATE SOCIALIST-FASCISM without any competition.
America’s leftist, noisier, more vocal Democrat Party news leading Jewish population, the Chuck Schumer crowd, is particularly allergic to the outdoors. Failures in life work and practically live outdoors….failures…..Republican voters….Christians not people gifted in speech and conning, and above all, interested in dictating “the lives of others” to be put out of the way.
Mulvaney: We’re Not Spending Money On Climate Change Anymore, “Waste Of Your Money”
by Ian Schwartz at realclearpolitics:
At Thursday’s White House press briefing Office of Management and Budget director Mick Mulvaney said spending money on climate change is a waste of money.
“Regarding the question as to climate change, I think the President was fairly straightforward — we’re not spending money on that anymore; we consider that to be a waste of your money to go out and do that. So that is a specific tie to his campaign,” Mulvaney told reporters.
From Thursday’s briefing:
QUESTION: Can you explain a little bit more about what message the President is trying to send by eliminating a lot of funding for science and climate change research, as you mentioned earlier? And just a follow-up later when you get a chance.
Please view the video and read the rest of the article:
MN Prager Discussion Group 
You must be logged in to post a comment.