Ahab Mueller Continues to Chase President Trump

I frankly don’t know how President Trump gets anything accomplished in the White House. What with the noise created by dominoes falling and the screeching of walls closing in due to Ahab Mueller’s investigation, it must be impossible to hear yourself think.

Gary McCoy, Shiloh, IL

On the plus side, the background din does make it that much harder for disgruntled employees to surreptitiously record the president’s conversations.

Now that former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen pled guilty, it’s time for Ahab Mueller and his angry Democrats to quit shilly–shallying and get to the campaign finance scandal hiding in plain sight: Barron Trump’s allowance.

Stormy Daniels ragging on Trump during his campaign is just another estrogen attack like Rosie O’Donnell or Megyn Kelly. Trump and female entertainers, with or without their clothes on, are a volatile mix.

Barron is a different story. Say he’s unhappy with the size of his allowance compared to that of other plutocrat progeny. In an interview with the school newspaper Barron calls his father a skinflint and hints that he might not be a billionaire. Tiger Beat picks up the story and the next thing you know George Ramos is shouting questions.

It’s possible Trump isn’t as wealthy as he claims. That’s why the only way the public would get access to Trump’s tax returns is if Anderson Cooper pried the documents from his cold, dead hands. I think that’s also why Trump abandoned one of his early selling points and didn’t finance his own campaign.

If Barron had even intimated he thought dad had small hands and a smaller bank account it would have been headline news. Keeping that negative publicity squashed would have been invaluable to Trump’s campaign.

That’s why it’s time for Mueller to bait another hook. First, Ahab needs to learn if Barron’s allowance experienced a suspiciously large increase just after his father announced. Then, who handled the money? Did Trump distribute the payoff or did he use a cutout like Melania? Or a check drawn on a Russian bank?

Everyone knows how volatile kids can be. Did Trump have to ‘sweeten the pot’ as the campaign intensified to ensure continued silence?

You may be skeptical. Thinking even the insane clown posse that constitutes the US left would hesitate to weaponize an allowance, but you’d be wrong.

Look at the “campaign law violations” to which Cohen pled guilty. In this instance Mueller manufactured his own whale and claimed a catch. The twisted logic behind the “violation” is twofold. Cohen made an illegal campaign contribution when he paid Stormy Daniels using his own money, then Trump reimbursed him. And two, the expenditure was not accurately reported on the campaign reports filed with the FEC.

Let’s take these fantasies one at a time. Trump is allowed to spend unlimited amounts of his money on his campaign. If Cohen is guilty of a contribution violation because he paid a whore for not performing, then EVERY campaign vendor from ad agencies, to printers, to pollsters are also guilty of campaign contribution violations if they bought media, printed literature or surveyed voters before being paid by the campaign.

By this illogic, any vendor who has an outstanding invoice— woe unto you if it’s the Clinton campaign — is also guilty of an expenditure violation or an unreported loan.

Which brings us to the other violation. There’s a blank on the form where the campaign explains for what the money was spent. I’ve seen ‘consulting,’ ‘media’ and ‘campaign services’ plenty of times, but never ‘hush money to a ‘ho.’ If Trump reimbursed Cohen and the expenditure was listed as ‘consulting’ and not ‘consorting’ then we are in the realm of definitions.

At worst it’s a labeling offense and no jury would convict and no prosecutor, other than one on a whale hunt, would bring charges. Fined, yes. Jail, no.

I’m in agreement with Mark Penn, formerly a consultant for the Clintons, “Paying for nondisclosure agreements for perfectly legal activities is not a crime, not a campaign contribution as commonly understood or ruled upon by the Federal Election Commission.”

Ahab Mueller had Cohen hanging from a yardarm. The bank fraud and tax charges were real and carry significant jail time. The deal was Cohen pleads guilty to actions that weren’t crimes to damage Trump in order to get leniency from Mueller on the real crimes.

As Penn points out, “[Cohen] is pleading guilty over a corporate contribution he did not make.” The one he did make was a personal expenditure that if Trump had used campaign funds to pay, he would have been guilty of committing a crime.

Investigating Barron’s allowance is no more ridiculous than indicting for convincing a ‘ho to sign a non–disclosure agreement. The Mueller gang isn’t conducting an investigation, it’s conducting a slow–motion coup.

Advertisements

Time for the Rest of Us to Unfriend the Media?

The news media has a shaky grasp of the Constitution. It’s true the 1st Amendment promises freedom of the press, but the Constitution does not promise immunity to criticism. President Trump is free to voice his opinion of journalists.

The president has some justification for his anger. Over 90 percent of the coverage of his administration is negative. This ceaseless assault makes news coverage during the Bush administration look like the ‘era of good feelings.’

Rick McKee, The Augusta Chronicle, GA

One could certainly make a case that when the president called the Opposition Media “enemies of the people” he was going too far, even though the phrase originally came from leftist hero Robespierre.

The question for those of us who are not members of the Trump administration is what do we call a national institution that seeks to amplify, if not generate, discord? An institution that works overtime to delegitimize law enforcement? A collection of self–appointed cultural monitors that holds average citizens and, particularly those who are white, in utter contempt?

Ungrateful. Negative. Sneering. Haughty. Biased. All those words are accurate descriptions of the majority of the US news media. If you think I’m exaggerating, look no farther than the news coverage of last weekend’s “Torchlight Nazi Party Rally” in Nuremburg.

Whoops, my mistake. Organizers couldn’t even afford Tiki torches this time. Instead “Unite the Right 2” had to console themselves with generating news coverage wildly out of proportion to their influence and power.

The Washington Post had an incredible 20 pre–rally stories. These breathless accounts were filled with references to last year’s riot in Charlottesville, the sinister implications of “white supremacists”, the malign ideology of “white nationalists” and how Donald Trump — the man who hired Omarosa! — was secretly encouraging a Wonder Bread coup. Which reminds me, if Trump is a closet racist, enabling Klan 2.0, he’s doing a lousy job of it. Blacks are currently at their lowest unemployment level in decades and his approval rating among blacks is now 36 percent.

The Post was like reading an issue of Pravda from the 1970’s. The USSR may have lost the Cold War, but it was the overwhelming victor in the propaganda war.

Stories previewing the rally could have been an opportunity to highlight the racial progress our country has made in the last 100 years. But leftist news media only believes in evolution when it undermines the Bible. It’s stasis, baby, as far as white conservatives are concerned. And that’s in spite of obvious evidence to the contrary.

In 1923 the largest Ku Klux Klan rally in history attracted 200,000 who reveled in an orgy of hate. “Unite the Right 2” organizers estimated a maximum of 400 Nazis and bigots would gather in Washington, DC, an attendance decline of 99.99 percent. And that was before the real head count, which showed about 24 die–hard haters appeared. Positive coverage could have pointed out these losers were protected by black police officers who would have been on the other end of the baton in 1962.

There are more “democratic socialists” holding office in America today than there are “white supremacists.” For an ideology that’s supposed to be so dangerous, these dead–enders have remarkably little impact. Where exactly are these whites supreme?

At the height of Reconstruction, when the South was occupied by Union troops, there were 1,500 black elected officials. In 2011 there were 10,500 black elected officials and the only troops in the South are on military bases local politicians will fight to their last breath to keep.

The US has black police chiefs, black mayors, black members of Congress. Blacks are even playing quarterback in Alabama! Schools are integrated. Public accommodations are integrated. The military is integrated. The only segregation that still exists was the special Metro car that kept the bigots alive as they traveled to and from the rally.

Bigots control no police forces today. No state or local governments, either. Racists have no media support. The culture has turned decisively against them. If it hadn’t, Obama administration appointees would be refused service in restaurants, instead of Trump administration officials.

Oh, yes, and that reminds me: THE USA ELECTED A BLACK MAN AS PRESIDENT.

And still the leftist media characterizes the US as a sinkhole of racism. This holier–than–thou news media attitude was perfectly characterized by the little clean, thoroughbred, white girl who demanded Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders tell her off the top of her head how many blacks worked for the president.

Hyping a non–existent threat from these sad, powerless racists is a false, disingenuous, dangerous narrative that only serves to create discord and empower the violent, fascist left. “Enemies of the people” may not be the right term, but impartial journalists certainly isn’t correct either.

A Heretic Offers Surrender Terms to Christians

Julie Rodgers, described by the Washington Post as “a writer, speaker and advocate for LGBTQ people in faith communities”, has offered a “compromise” proposal to Christians designed to end the cultural war between believers and alphabet soup alternate lifestyle advocates.

It rivals Gen. Ulysses S. Grant’s surrender terms at Fort Donaldson in its lack of generosity and sweeping demands.

In 1862 the commander of Fort Donaldson asked Gen. Grant for terms. Grant replied, “no terms except an unconditional and immediate surrender can be accepted. I propose to move immediately upon your works.”

Christians haven’t asked for surrender terms from lifestyle heretics even though the church has been under ceaseless attack from leftists who would outlaw all religion, joined by therapeutic Christians who place feelings ahead of biblical doctrine.

Lack of interest didn’t prevent Rodgers from offering to “bridge this divide.”  Peace will reign if Christians agree to submit to any and all “affirming” demands from the Legions of License. This submission includes every realm of life outside the church; and Rodgers gives the impression there are plans for the future there, too.

Once Christians toe the line, Julie and her allies won’t move immediately on churches’ tax–exempt status.

Frankly, I’m not ready to sell my Christian birthright for a mess of tax breaks, even if Rodgers could be trusted to keep her end of the bargain.

Julie’s dishonesty is evident only 66 words into her manifesto. She refers to believers who adhere to biblical doctrine with a 2,000 year old pedigree as “conservative Christians.” Her intent is to marginalize the great majority of believers and characterize them as out of the mainstream and possibly Republican.

The correct term for congregations who believe God opposes sexual deviancy and considers the bond of marriage to be limited to one man and one woman, is ‘Christian.’

The accurate term for those who hold opposing beliefs is ‘heretic.’

In Rodgers eyes Christians are doubly guilty because of what they believe and their attempt to live their faith — which hurts the feelings of the heretics.  This means I have bad news for Julie. God doesn’t care about your sexual orientation celebration. He cares about your soul’s ultimate salvation.

Julie has written that the Bible needs to keep up with the times. “Both sides are sincere Christians and view the Bible as authoritative––they just differ on how the Bible, which was written in a patriarchal context in the 1st century, should apply to empowered women in the 21st century.” Translated, this means Jesus would approve of alphabet lifestyles in the church and homosexual marriage if He just had access to all the facts, like Julie does.

The heretics want to divide the Body of Christ by using the pejorative term ‘conservative’ for mainstream believers, while at the same time dividing the Apostles by making Paul a TEA Party Republican. That way it’s easier to ignore his obvious instruction on marriage and homosexual practice.

Julie, who’ll be marrying another woman any day now, is confused by Christian reluctance to jettison orthodox biblical belief on her sayso, “It became hard for me to understand what exactly was driving traditional teaching on marriage if it was not fear of change––a very particular kind of fear that’s often expressed through homophobia.”

But which side is the aggressor here? Are Baptists suing florists who provide centerpieces for same–sex weddings? How about bakers who put two men on the top of the wedding cake? Or photographers who memorialize the ceremony?

The question answers itself. The alphabet–apostates are not demanding to be left alone so they may live their lives as they wish. They are demanding Christians live their lives according to the demands of those in rebellion against God’s word.

Rodger’s writes, “It’s not hard to understand why LGBTQ people don’t trust conservative Christians enough to work toward a compromise.” But what Julie offers isn’t a compromise, it’s a demand for submission.

Christian churches don’t single out the consonant crusaders. Churches are opposed to obvious and flagrant adulterers, incest practitioners, polygamists and couples shacking up, assuming the churches are aware of the transgressions.

Julie’s allies make it a point to be flagrant and then object to the predictable consequences. Her disingenuous ‘peace’ proposal is a demand Christians stop following Christ and start following the culture.

Rodgers assures us becoming party to her apostasy will be painless, “The most conservative Christians can joyfully provide services to people they think are sinful without violating the spirit of Scripture.”

Which is true. I cheerfully provide personal services to a sinner when I brush my teeth at night. What I believe Christians won’t provide, joyfully or otherwise, is validation and celebration of practices that purposely insult the God we worship and the faith we practice.

How Dare Catholic Hospitals Protect the Unborn!

FiveThirtyEight.com is an Opposition Media website that assures us of its superiority and authority: “FiveThirtyEight uses statistical analysis — hard numbers — to tell compelling stories about elections, politics, sports, science, economics and culture.”

What that glowing description leaves out is that FiveThirtyEight reporters also use bias and selective ‘facts’ to color how they report their “hard numbers.”

Rick McKee The Augusta Chronicle, GA

And speaking of firmness, the website appears to have a bone of contention with Catholic hospitals in the US.

Even we low–information Trump voters know there is an “opioid crisis” in rural America. It’s so bad that even normally disdained rural whites are getting sympathetic news coverage. Simultaneously, there’s another rural crisis that affects everyone in the boondocks, druggies and deplorables alike. As drugs move in, hospitals are moving out. For–profit hospitals leave because low incomes and low population density make it difficult to justify operating a hospital in the hinterlands.

When small town hospitals close it leaves residents without healthcare options. Below is a sampling of relevant headlines:

A Hospital Crisis Is Killing Rural Communities. This State Is ‘Ground Zero.’

Hospital Closings Likely to Increase

Nearly 700 rural hospitals at risk of closing

After that one would think any organization keeping rural hospitals open would be the beneficiary of praise and congratulated for their compassion for rural Americans. But not so fast. That thinking might get one fired at FiveThirtyEight.

Anna Maria Barry–Jester and Amelia Thomson–DeVeaux (beware of reporters bearing hyphens) examined one organization that still operates rural hospitals and found it wanting, and even worse, religious. “In a growing number of communities around the country, especially in rural areas, patients and physicians have access to just one hospital. And in more and more places, that hospital is Catholic.”

Now I can understand if the hospital was operated by Mormons it might be tough to get a cup of coffee in the cafeteria, but what could be wrong with Catholics? After all, the word ‘hospital’ comes to us from the Knights Hospitaller, an order dating back to the Crusades.

The danger is evidently intrinsic to being a Catholic. “What happens when you need or want a standard medical service, but the hospital won’t provide it?”

A hospital that won’t provide “standard medical service”? That does sound ominous.

I know Catholic doctrine considers homosexual practice a sin, but that shouldn’t rule out a colonoscopy. Passing out drunk is frowned upon, too, but I don’t think anesthesia is banned. Suicide is certainly a no–no, but I’ve never read of a Catholic hospital forcing those who attempt self–murder to visit a Satanist for treatment.

So what are these “standard medical services”?

The “hard numbers” reporters explain, “…abortion, birth control, vasectomies, tubal ligations, some types of end–of–life care, emergency contraception and procedures related to gender transition can all be off-limits if your local hospital happens to be Catholic.”

Translation: If you want an abortion, assisted suicide or to have your body vandalized so you can claim to be a woman (or man) when you’re not, a Catholic hospital is not a good place to go for an estimate.

The other “standard” procedures relate to birth control and even those in the grip of the strongest passion can pop into Walmart for stopgap measures, until they make their way to the big city.

As Becket Adams, who found the story, pointed out, “Remember, this is an article is about Catholic hospitals servicing poor and isolated rural areas where other medical organizations don’t or can’t operate.”

One would think the left would be celebrating Catholic’s commitment to the rural poor isolated by the closure of evil profit–making hospitals. Instead the hyphen twins twist facts to make Catholic hospitals look malign.

In Cook County, not a rural area, the Pope’s practitioners are made to appear sinister because Medicaid patients were enrolled “in a plan where Catholic hospitals made up a bigger share of in-network facilities with labor and delivery departments than the share they accounted for in Cook County as a whole.”

What they don’t tell readers is why. That’s because Catholic hospitals will accept any Medicaid patients, while many for–profit hospitals won’t accept the same patients because the reimbursement rates are very low and the checks come very slow. Catholic hospitals are ‘over represented’ because the for–profit hospitals wanted out.

Instead of the praise Catholic hospitals deserve for continuing to serve the poor and isolated, these religious institutions are pilloried in the media because Catholics refuse to provide an altar for the left’s sacrament of abortion and its celebration of sexual license and dysfunction.

In spite of the FiveThirtyEight criticism, I imagine that even rural atheists are glad they have a hospital, in spite of the fact it’s run by Catholics.

Kavanaugh’s Audition to Join Oracles at Delphi

The Claremont Institute and the James Wilson Institute recently co–hosted a panel discussing “The Kavanaugh Hearing: A Battle of Two Constitutions.” Don’t let the title confuse you. The Senate hearing for Brett Kavanaugh — President Trump’s latest Supreme Court nominee — won’t be like a customer service phone tree where you press #1 for the US Constitution or #2 for the Mexican Constitution.

Currently the US Constitution is still the law of the land, in spite of the best efforts of globalists on the left. What the panel worthies were discussing was two different views of the Constitution and the role of a Supreme Court judge. Conservatives according to John Eastman, Director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, view the Constitution as a document “that means what it says and is interpreted faithfully” by the Supreme Court.

Nate Beeler, The Columbus Dispatch

The left views the Constitution as a musty document written by white supremacists that is not to be taken literally. This is in stark contrast to the left’s views on the “white supremacist” in the Oval Office. Trump’s tweets, statements, random musings and jokes are always taken quite literally.

The left prefers a “living Constitution” shorn of white privilege and Christianity. This is a “Constitution that is flexible and conforms to the culture,” explains Eastman. Under the left the court operates more like Miss America judges who put more emphasis on the social station of contestants and how they will cure cancer.

Or as the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, the Liar of the Senate, said during the John Roberts’ confirmation hearing, “Whose side is Roberts on?” That is particularly important for the left because the Supreme Court has become their legislature of last resort. With enough justices on the left’s side, the Supreme Court can create the law.

Past victories include abortion, homosexual marriage, the federal stamp of approval for homosexual sex, the Kelo decision and the growth of the unelected administrative state.

Even with a Republican majority in both houses and a Republican president — the trifecta that Curator of the Senate Mitch McConnell assured conservatives would result in a tsunami of legislation, but instead only raised the humidity — Republicans are as anxious as Democrats are resigned.

Hadley Arkes, a Senior Fellow of the Claremont Institute, reminds us that after Robert Bork’s nomination was rejected by the Senate after a false and vitriolic display of character assassination, Republicans didn’t decide to fight back. Instead GOP nominees adopted a pose of “lasting defensiveness and timidity.”

While the left proudly announces its litmus test favoring abortion, campaign spending and guns that all their nominees must pass, Republicans act as though there is something shameful about protecting the unborn. One could say they’ve taken the spot in the closet recently vacated by homosexuals.

Even President Trump, who is no stranger to verbal controversy, assures one and all that he never asks his nominees their position on life. As a result GOP Supreme Court nominees act like air travelers in the screening line. They shuffle along and avoid making eye contact. As Arkes puts it nominees are told, “don’t scare the horses and don’t scare [RINO senators] Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins.”

Conservative senators are reduced to hoping the nominee judges like Clarence Thomas, but fearing he may turn out like John Roberts.

This primacy of the Supreme Court was never intended by the founders. Judges were to have limited role, according to Thomas Jipping, Deputy Director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies , “interpreting and applying the law impartially.”

The fact judges do not is a symptom of the rot in Washington. Congress has abdicated its legislative and oversight role. There are few spectacles more pitiful than a Republican Congress suing Obama over unconstitutional elements of Obamacare when they have the legislative power to defund or amend the law. Rather than do the job to which they were elected, country club Republicans throw themselves on the mercy of the court.

Democrats are aggressive. Jipping explains their view is “judges have an unlimited role defined by the outcome of the case. The end justifies the means.” Citizens are presented with the sight of feeble Republicans deferring their authority to the courts, while leftists encourage the courts to make the laws they can’t convince the public to approve.

Judges who faithfully followed the injunction of Leviticus 19:15: “You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor” would return the court to its proper role under the design of the founders and go a long way toward re–establishing the separation of power envisioned when the Constitution was written.

Until that happens, as Arkes’ says, the president is now reduced to being “the prime elector, choosing our nine black–robed rulers.”