Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the National Security category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘National Security’ Category

According to Catherine Herridge’s stellar reporting, Hillary Clinton’s State Department didn’t just fail Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens on the day of the Benghazi attacks. They botched compound security multiple times.

According to the article, “Security at the State Department’s Benghazi compound was so dire that another contractor was brought in to clean up the mess just two weeks before the 2012 terror attack, and was later pressured to keep quiet by a government bureaucrat under then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, according to two men from the American security company.” Further into the article, it was reported “After the death of Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi in the fall of 2011, Owens stressed to Fox News it was well-known that Islamic radicals including Al Qaeda-tied militias were pouring into the region and security had deteriorated considerably.‘ Based on documents reviewed by Fox News, Torres Advanced Enterprise Solutions bid on the Benghazi compound security contract in the spring of 2012. But the State Department awarded the deal to a U.K.-based operation called The Blue Mountain Group. Owens, who had personally visited the Benghazi compound to assess security, was shocked. ‘Blue Mountain U.K. is a teeny, tiny, little security company registered in Wales that had never had a diplomatic security contract, had never done any high threat contracts anywhere else in the world that we’ve been able to find, much less in high threat areas for the U.S. government. They had a few guys on the ground,’ he said.”

This is disgusting:

By Aug. 31, 2012, the situation had deteriorated to the point that Owens and Torres said the State Department asked them to intervene – as Owens put it, an “admission of the mistake of choosing the wrong company.”

“They came back to us and said, ‘Can you guys come in and take over security?’ Owens said. “So we were ready.”

Though her supporter will deny this, it’s indisputable that security in Benghazi was a total mess. Hillary’s FSOs didn’t push for increased compound security. When they finally listened to people on the ground, it was too little, too late.

Democrats are expressing their faux outrage at President Trump’s pardon of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, often in terms that would make drama queens look stoic. For instance, Sally Yates, the former acting attorney general that President Trump fired for not defending his travel ban, said “With his pardon pen, POTUS reveals his own contempt for our Constitution, our courts, and our founding principles of equality and justice.”

Where was Ms. Yates when President Obama pardoned Bradley Manning? This article highlights what Manning did. According to the article, “Manning … was convicted of multiple other counts, including violations of the Espionage Act, for copying and disseminating classified military field reports, State Department cables, and assessments of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.”

The article continued, saying “The message won’t be lost for everyone in the military,” said Steven Bucci, director of the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation. “When you sign a security clearance and swear oaths, you actually have to abide by that. It is not optional.”

Let’s summarize quickly. Sally Yates was fired for refusing to do her job as acting Attorney General. Before that termination, she sat silent when President Obama pardoned Bradley Manning, who was convicted of “copying and disseminating classified military field reports, State Department cables, and assessments of detainees held” at Gitmo. Sheriff Joe didn’t undermine national security like Manning did. Sheriff Joe ran afoul of a corrupt judge for enforcing laws that the Obama administration refused to enforce.

The stupidity wasn’t purely partisan. Republican Sen. Jeff Flake tweeted his opinion, saying “Regarding the Arpaio pardon, I would have preferred that the President honor the judicial process and let it take its course.” In other words, Sen. Flake was too spineless to take a unambiguous position.

Simply put, Arpaio was targeted by the Obama administration because, unlike the Obama administration, he actually enforced immigration laws. Anyone criticizing President Trump’s pardon show that they’re soft on protecting Americans from south-of-the-border drug cartels and human traffickers.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Jim Clapper, the former DNI, aka Director of National Intelligence, has been a political hatchet man for years. Now employed by CNN, all that’s changed is that he isn’t a hatchet man for the federal government. Instead, he’s a political hatchet man for CNN. This article highlights Mr. Clappers propensity for political shenanigans.

After Don Lemon’s anti-Trump diatribe, he continued with the theme that Trump wasn’t fit to be president, this time getting Clapper to echo Lemon’s accusations. During the interview, Dir. Clapper said “I really question his ability, his fitness to be in this office and I also am beginning to wonder about his motivation for it. Maybe he is looking for a way out. I do wonder, as well about the people that attracted to this, to this rally as others. You know, what are they thinking? Or why am I so far off base? Because I don’t understand the adulation. Of course, that’s why I think he gravitated to having this rally as ill-timed as it is.”

The first obvious question that Clapper needs to be asked is why he thinks President Trump is “looking for a way out.” Since the Russia collusion investigation pretty much collapsed, Democrat operatives starting conducting a stealth campaign questioning President Trump’s stability. At this year’s Netroots Nation gathering, DNC Vice-Chair Keith Ellison didn’t mince words. He said that President Trump was less stable than Kim Jung Un. This week, the storyline from Don Lemon and James Clapper has been that President Trump is unhinged.

To fully understand this story, let’s understand who Jim Clapper is. This is the opening paragraph of Sen. Wyden’s statement after DNI Clapper resigned:

During Director Clapper’s tenure, senior intelligence officials engaged in a deception spree regarding mass surveillance. Top officials, officials who reported to Director Clapper, repeatedly misled the American people and even lied to them.

It’s worth noting that Sen. Wyden isn’t a diehard movement conservative. He’s a liberal Democrat from Oregon. There’s more from Sen. Wyden’s official statement:

After the NSA Director declined to correct these statements, I put the question to the Director of National Intelligence in March 2013.  I wouldn’t have been doing my job if I hadn’t asked that question.  My staff and I spent weeks preparing it, and I had my staff send him the question in advance so that he would be prepared to answer it.  

Director Clapper famously gave an untrue answer to that question.  So I had my intelligence staffer call his office afterward and ask them to correct the record. The Director’s office refused to correct the record. Regardless of what was going through the director’s head when he testified, failing to correct the record was a deliberate decision to lie to the American people about what their government was doing. And within a few months, of course, the truth came out.

That isn’t all that DNI Clapper did, though. Here’s more:

Former President Barack Obama’s intelligence chief issued revised procedures in 2013 that made it easier for executive branch officials to “unmask” the names of lawmakers or congressional staffers caught up in intelligence intercepts overseas, according to interviews and documents reviewed by The Hill. Procedures issued by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in March 2013 formally supplanted a 1992 set of rules that made the dissemination of names of intercepted lawmakers or congressional aides an act of last resort.

The new standard allowed for a lawmaker’s or staffer’s name to be unmasked if  “an executive branch recipient of intelligence” believed that learning “the identity of the Member of Congress or the Congressional staff is necessary to understand and assess the associated intelligence and further a lawful activity of the recipient agency,” according to a memo released earlier this month by the DNI’s office with little public fanfare.

Unmasking these people’s identities wasn’t done for national security purposes. It was done for political purposes.

UPDATE: During Brian Kilmeade’s interview of Lt. Col. Tony Schaffer, Lt. Col. Schaffer highlighted the fact that former DNI Clapper got caught lying under oath. Democrats first tried delegitimizing President Trump’s victory by saying Trump colluded with Russia to win the election. When that investigation fell apart, Democrats switched to insinuating that President Trump wasn’t fit for office. Who knows what’s next?

Here’s the video of Schaffer’s interview with Kilmeade:

It isn’t surprising that high-profile Democrats criticized of President Trump’s speech on Afghanistan. For instance, Pelosi said “Tonight, the President said he knew what he was getting into and had a plan to go forward. Clearly, he did not. The President’s announcement is low on details but raises serious questions.”

The theme of details was clearly a chief talking point for Democrats. Rep. Ruben Gallego, an Arizona Democrat and Marine Corps veteran, said “Tonight, the American people should have heard a detailed, realistic strategy with achievable objectives and measurable benchmarks. Instead, we got only vague promises and wishful thinking.”

Actually, that’s fiction. President Trump said that his administration was shifting away from an artificial timeline-based strategy to a conditions-based strategy. That alone is a major detail shift. Further, President Trump authorized his generals to make decisions in the field without having to get his approval prior to taking action. That’s another major detail and a major shift away from the Obama administration’s policy. John McCain highlighted that in his statement after the speech:

“I believe the President is now moving us well beyond the prior administration’s failed strategy of merely postponing defeat.”

Those are major details accompanied by a substantial shift in how the military will fight this war. Another major difference the Trump Doctrine and the Obama doctrine is that Trump is fighting to win. President Obama never left the impression that winning was a major consideration. Rich Lowry’s article highlights things perfectly:

Pressure on Pakistan is a major element of the new strategy. We’ll see what comes of that. It seems to me that pressuring Pakistan to be more responsible in Afghanistan is the equivalent of pressuring China to force North Korea to be more responsible: Every administration wants to find a way to do it, but no one ever does. The warm words about India surely got the attention of Islamabad, though.

At the end of the day, this is Trump concluding that he doesn’t want to lose a war on his watch, and if that means jettisoning some of his presuppositions, he’s willing to do it. If only President Obama had handled the question of whether or not to pull out of Iraq the same way.

NRO’s Quin Hillyer highlighted another important detail in his article :

And, of utmost importance, Trump is putting less strictures on our rules of engagement, so our forces in the region and on the ground can react more swiftly and more appropriately to both threats and opportunities.

Simply put, this is additional proof that Democrats feel the need to disagree with President Trump no matter what he proposed. If Democrats don’t switch out of criticize-Trump-all-the-time mode, they’ll never be taken seriously. Democrats will be seen as the party that’s only capable of criticizing President Trump.

The media isn’t helping Democrats even though they’re singing from the same hymnal:

CNN’s Athena Jones said “It was a long-awaited new strategy delivered in a speech that was long on broad themes but that was short on specifics.” Later, Ms. Jones said “He didn’t lay out details on troop levels and he didn’t explain how this new strategy, which borrows heavily from other ones, would help insure a victory, which has eluded this country for 16 years.”

This is what happens when you hire news readers instead of hiring experts who know what they’re talking about. Changing the rules of engagement, aka ROE, so that soldiers can take the fight to the terrorists, is a giant step in the right direction to winning, not just fighting with one hand tied behind their backs.

Finally, I’d love hearing Ms. Jones highlight what parts of President Trump’s new strategy “borrows heavily from” other’s strategies. Ms. Jones’ segment is more myth than reporting.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

The biggest thing that came through during President Trump’s speech on Afghanistan was that Gen. Obama’s (my term, not Trump’s) policies are history. President Trump couldn’t have state things more emphatically than when he said “First, our nation must seek an honorable and enduring outcome worthy of the tremendous sacrifices that have been made, especially the sacrifices of lives. The men and women who serve our nation in combat deserve a plan for victory. They deserve the tools they need and the trust they have earned to fight and to win. Second, the consequences of a rapid exit are both predictable and unacceptable. 9/11, the worst terrorist attack in our history, was planned and directed from Afghanistan because that country by a government that gave comfort and shelter to terrorists. A hasty withdrawal would create a vacuum that terrorists, including ISIS and al Qaeda, would instantly fill, just as happened before September 11. And as we know, in 2011, America hastily and mistakenly withdrew from Iraq.”

In those words, President Trump said that withdrawing from Iraq in 2011 was a mistake because it created “a vacuum that terrorists, including ISIS and al Qaeda, would instantly fill.” Later, President Trump said “No one denies that we have inherited a challenging and troubling situation in Afghanistan and South Asia, but we do not have the luxury of going back in time and making different or better decisions.” I won’t be surprised if ‘Gen. Obama’, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Marie Harf deny that President Trump inherited “a challenging and troubling situation” in southwest Asia but that’s to be expected.

A key part of President Trump’s speech, at least for me, was when he explained his thinking for the strategy:

My original instinct was to pull out, and historically I like following my instincts. But all my life, I have heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the oval office. In other words, when you are president of the United States. So I studied Afghanistan in great detail and from every conceivable angle. After many meetings over many months, we held our final meeting last Friday at Camp David with my cabinet and generals to complete our strategy. I arrived at three fundamental conclusion about America’s core interests in Afghanistan.

President Trump admitted what we all know: that he’s changed his mind on Afghanistan. He attributed his change of mind to sitting “behind the desk in the Oval Office.” I suspect most thoughtful people would accept that thinking.

The haters, though, won’t cut President Trump any slack. As the saying goes, haters gotta hate. It’s sad that too many people hate first, then think of the consequences later. In many ways, though, this was President Trump’s greatest speech. This riff was especially powerful and inspiring:

American patriots from every generation have given their last breath on the battlefield – for our nation and for our freedom. Through their lives, and though their lives – were cut short, in their deeds they achieved total immortality. By following the heroic example of those who fought to preserve our republic, we can find the inspiration our country needs to unify, to heal and to remain one nation under God. The men and women of our military operate as one team, with one shared mission and one shared sense of purpose.

They transcend every line of race, ethnicity, creed, and color to serve together and sacrifice together in absolutely perfect cohesion. That is because all service members are brothers and sisters. They are all part of the same family. It’s called the American family. They take the same oath, fight for the same flag, and live according to the same law.

They are bound together by common purpose, mutual trust, and selfless devotion to our nation and to each other. The soldier understands what we as a nation too often forget, that a wound inflicted upon on a single member of our community is a wound inflicted upon us all. When one part of America hurts, we all hurt.

And when one citizen suffers an injustice, we all suffer together. Loyalty to our nation demands loyalty to one another. Love for America requires love for all of its people. When we open our hearts to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice, no place for bigotry, and no tolerance for hate. The young men and women we sent to fight our wars abroad deserve to return to a country that is not at war with itself at home. We cannot remain a force for peace in the world if we are not at peace with each other.

As we send our bravest to defeat our enemies overseas, and we will always win, let us find the courage to heal our divisions within. Let us make a simple promise to the men and women we ask to fight in our name, that when they return home from battle, they will find a country that has renewed the sacred bonds of love and loyalty that unite us together as one.

If that part of President Trump’s speech doesn’t inspire you, then you need to re-examine yourself. It’s that simple.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

The headline speaks for itself. North Korean leader Kim Jung Un displayed something approaching rational behavior. The opening paragraph of Fox News’ article said “Kim Jong Un appeared to blink first, with North Korean media reporting Tuesday the dictator had delayed a decision about whether to fire missiles toward Guam – a pronouncement that came hours after a particularly stark warning from Defense Secretary James Mattis promised further escalation would mean ‘game on.'”

More than a month ago, Gen. Mattis was asked what kept him up at night. His response was essentially that he keeps others awake at night. Now we see why. Gen. Mattis brings to the equation something that wasn’t there during the Obama administration: a credible threat of the use of military force.

Last week, Gen. Mattis said “The DPRK must choose to stop isolating itself and stand down its pursuit of nuclear weapons. The DPRK should cease any consideration of actions that would lead to the end of its regime and the destruction of its people.” Apparently, Kim Jung Un took that not-so-veiled-threat seriously. That’s one of Un’s first rational thoughts in ages.

Last week, Marie Harf got into it with Lisa Booth, asking “If this rhetoric leads to North Korea attacking Guam, are you ok with that?”

Booth replied “No offense, Marie, but I am so sick and tired of the criticism of the “sound and fury” comment. We have Secretary Mattis, who was confirmed by 98-1 in the Senate, who is a brilliant military scholar, who is a student of history, who is known for being deeply thoughtful, who essentially said the same thing yesterday…”

This morning, we found out that Kim Jung Un backed down, thereby eliminating all of Ms. Harf’s what ifs. During the Obama administration, they didn’t attempt to back Kim Jung Un down with a credible threat of the use of military force. The Obama’s policy of strategic patience was deployed. The Chinese and the Un administration didn’t have an incentive to blink.

As for the question that the media wing of the Democratic Party didn’t ask, Susan Rice answered it recently, saying that the US could live with a nuclear North Korea. The truth is that the Obama administration was filled with Carteresque pacifists. This time, Americans should be happy that Gen. Mattis was asked to clean up the Obama administration’s mess.

Chuck Schumer’s op-ed is the Democrats’ old agenda dressed up in new clothes. It’s just another instance of Democrats putting a ton of lipstick on an ugly pig.

Sen. Schumer says that “Democrats will show the country that we’re the party on the side of working people — and that we stand for three simple things.” Then Sen. Schumer proceeds to tell us that “First, we’re going to increase people’s pay. Second, we’re going to reduce their everyday expenses. And third, we’re going to provide workers with the tools they need for the 21st-century economy.”

They’re still the same socialists they’ve been since 2001. For instance, Democrats will stand for “increasing workers’ incomes by lifting the minimum wage to $15; and lowering household costs by providing paid family and sick leave.” How is that different than what they’ve pushed for years? According to this NPR article, which was published in November of 2015, “fast-food workers … plan to protest at the Republican presidential debate in Milwaukee. They want the federal minimum wage boosted to $15.”

Then there’s this:

Right now millions of unemployed or underemployed people, particularly those without a college degree, could be brought back into the labor force or retrained to secure full-time, higher-paying work.

Cities that’ve implemented a $15/hr. minimum wage have gotten hurt. Further, Democrats haven’t said that they’ll push for increased pipeline construction. Noticeably missing from the Democrats’ plan is a commitment for increased oil exploration and coal mining. President Obama once infamously said that “we can’t just drill our way to lower gas prices.”

It wasn’t just President Obama saying we couldn’t drill our way to cheaper gas prices. Sen. Schumer insisted that Democrats had a better solution:

In June and July, we will be introducing legislation that will promote conservation, that will promote alternative energy and that will do many things to reduce the price.

Meanwhile, Republicans pushed for increased fracking and energy independence. Today, we’re on the verge of being energy independent. It’s more than that, though. President Trump proposed increasing natural gas exports to Europe. If a pipeline is built, it’ll deal a crushing blow to Putin.

Democrats aren’t interested in that, though, because Tom Steyer and other Democratic special interests oppose energy independence. Hint to Democrats: you can’t be pro blue collar jobs if you oppose mining and fracking.

Eugene Robinson’s latest article is proof that there aren’t many great strategists left in the Democratic Party. A topnotch political strategist wouldn’t say “In the two weeks since, Trump has only piled outrage upon outrage, as far as progressives are concerned. He took the first steps toward building his ridiculous wall along the southern border, but with U.S. taxpayers’ dollars, not Mexico’s. He squelched government experts who work on climate change. He weakened the Affordable Care Act in the hope that it would begin to collapse, which would make it easier for Congress to kill it.”

That’s because they’d know that the ACA started collapsing a year ago. Its collapse is inevitable because it’s terrible legislation. A relatively healthy person is better off not buying insurance because the ACA’s out-of-pocket expenses (premiums plus deductibles) in some states are so high that families are better off paying the penalty rather than buying the insurance. As I’ve written before, the ACA is catastrophic coverage at Cadillac plan prices.

And I can’t help thinking back to 2009. Republicans made an all-out effort to stop the Affordable Care Act. Their motives were purely political; some GOP senators railed against policies they had favored in the past. Ultimately, they failed.  Obamacare became law.

But this losing battle gave tremendous energy and passion to the tea party movement — which propelled Republicans to a sweeping victory in the 2010 midterm election. It is hard not to see an analogous situation on the Democratic side right now.

Democrats haven’t learned the TEA Party lesson, which is that politicians better listen to We The People or else. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi didn’t listen to people and lost 12 seats and 63 seats respectively. Chuck Schumer isn’t listening to the people, either. The chances of Democrats picking up Senate seats is remote at best.

Democrats cannot stop Gorsuch from being confirmed. But they can hearten and animate the party’s base by fighting this nomination tooth and nail, even if it means giving up some of the backslapping comity of the Senate cloakroom. They can inspire grass-roots activists to fight just as hard to win back state legislatures and governorships. They can help make 2018 a Democratic year.

This is delusional thinking. Democrats will lose more governorships and legislative seats because they’re owned by special interests. They haven’t talked about doing what’s best for the people. President Trump constantly talks about putting people first. Democrats reflexively side with environmental activists, which has alienated blue collar union rank-and-file.

Democrats in Illinois haven’t pressured Rahm Emanuel to actually crack down on Chicago’s crime-infested streets. New York City’s City Council hasn’t blasted Bill De Blasio’s sanctuary city policies. In both cities, people don’t feel safe. Former President Obama insisted that terrorism wasn’t a threat while ISIS killed people in shopping malls and at Christmas parties. The Obama administration insisted, too, that the borders were secured. Voters knew that wasn’t true.

Voters won’t vote for the party that won’t protect them. Right now, people don’t trust Democrats to handle the basic government functions. Until that happens, people won’t trust Democrats.

This article in the Pi-Press is disgusting in its dishonesty. In the article, the ‘reporter’ says that “Trump’s highly controversial order suspends refugee admissions for 120 days and bars all immigration for 90 days of citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries with terrorism concerns: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Those now being barred from the country include refugees who have already been thoroughly vetted by U.S. agencies.”

Either this reporter is telling an outright lie or he’s incredibly ignorant of the truth. Though Politifact attempts to sweep things under the carpet, the fact remains that FBI Director James Comey testified that “We can only query against that which we have collected, and so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interests reflected in our database, we can query our database till the cows come home, but … there’ll be nothing show up, because we have no record on that person.”

Politifact tried spinning things by saying “But did James Comey actually say the FBI “cannot properly vet” people coming from the Middle East? No, he didn’t. Beruff is distorting a point Comey was making about a flaw in the vetting process, but he was reiterating the system in place was actually much better than it had been in the past.”

Here’s the real exchange:

Ranking member Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) asked Comey, “Mr. Director, before this committee, [FBI] Assistant Director [Michael] Steinbach said that the concerns in Syria is that we don’t have the systems in place on the ground to collect the information to vet. That would be the concern. Databases don’t hold the information on these individuals. Is that still the position of the department?”

“Yes, I think that’s the challenge we’re all talking about, is that we can only query against that which we have collected, and so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interests reflected in our database, we can query our database till the cows come home, but we’re not gonna—there’ll be nothing show up, because we have no record on that person,” said Comey. “That’s what Assistant Director Steinbach was talking about,” he added.

Not having verifiable data to compare against isn’t “a flaw in the vetting process.” That’s admitting that it’s impossible to vet people. Here’s video of FBI Director Comey’s testimony:

That’s pretty open-and-shut testimony.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The dishonest media is doing its best to whip the nation into a frenzy by not reporting the contents of President Trump’s EO accurately. Democrats are doing everything possible to keep the public misinformed. Kamala Harris, who replaced Barbara Boxer as the junior senator from California, is protesting President Trump’s EO that temporarily bans Muslims from 7 specific nations known as terrorist hotbeds. Rather than doing the job that people expect them to do, which is to accurately inform people of what’s happening in Washington, DC, the dishonest media is doing its best to mislead the public while telling people that President Trump is a racist and an Islamophobe.

William Jacobsen rightly said in this post that people “should actually read it“. The important part of what President Trump’s EO said actually cites the US law that permits him to act in our nation’s national security interests. It says “Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.”

Not only is the dishonest media getting things wrong. It’s badly misleading people to the point where it’s difficult that this isn’t intentional. Progressive activists aren’t helping, either, by flocking to social media to complain about President Trump’s EO, then aggregating them under the hashtag #MuslimBan. What the dishonest media and these progressive activists haven’t explained is how the so-called #MuslimBan doesn’t include the nation with the biggest Muslim population in the world (Indonesia) or how Muslim nations like Turkey, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia aren’t on the list.

Then there’s this:

The order bars all people hailing from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Those countries were named in a 2016 law concerning immigration visas as “countries of concern.”

If Trump is anti-Muslim for temporarily banning people from these countries, then former President Obama must be anti-Muslim, too, because he signed the bill into law. Thomas Lifson’s article highlights the fact that Syria is the only nation named in President Trump’s EO:

I read the order and Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen are not mentioned in it. Go back and read it again. Do a “ctrl-f” to find “Iraq.” Where is “Iraq” in the order. It’s not there. Only Syria is there. So where are the seven nations? Where is the “Muslim ban?” It turns out this was a form of fake news, or alternative facts. Trump didn’t select seven “Muslim-majority” countries. US President Barack Obama’s administration selected these seven Muslim-majority countries.

This is proof positive that President Trump is right in calling the dishonest media the opposition party. I’d go a step further. I’d argue that they’re unindicted co-conspirators with dishonest Democratic Party politicians like Elizabeth Warren, Chuck Schumer, Kamala Harris, Dianne Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi.

If their collective dishonesty were political capital, that bunch would rule Washington, DC for decades. Thank God that isn’t the case. They’re just a bunch of dishonest progressive politicians that the nation rejected this past November. I’ll leave you with this video:

It’s video of a manipulative, dishonest politician. I never thought I’d say this but I think I’d prefer Harry Reid over this politician.