Archive for the ‘Foreign Policy’ Category

Democrats aren’t interested in bipartisanship when it comes to impeachment. Democrats don’t even care if their hearings take pot shots at teenage kids. Democrats don’t even care if they don’t have evidence that proves their charges. In the Democrats’ minds, they know that President Trump is evil and must be impeached and convicted. In the Democrats’ minds, they don’t need proof to impeach. They just need fanciful theories that support the Democrats’ bloodlust to impeach and convict President Trump. In this case, the fanciful theories that Democrats are relying on are found in the Findings of Facts section of the Schiff Report.

For instance, Finding of Fact #IV says “President Trump ordered the suspension of $391 million in vital military assistance urgently needed by Ukraine, a strategic partner, to resist Russian aggression. Because the aid was appropriated by Congress, on a bipartisan basis, and signed into law by the President, its expenditure was required by law. Acting directly and through his subordinates within the U.S. government, the President withheld from Ukraine this military assistance without any legitimate foreign policy, national security, or anti-corruption justification. The President did so despite the longstanding bipartisan support of Congress, uniform support across federal departments and agencies for the provision to Ukraine of the military assistance, and his obligations under the Impoundment Control Act.”

Saying that “the President withheld from Ukraine this military assistance without any legitimate foreign policy, national security or anti-corruption justification” isn’t proof. That’s opinion. The Constitution gives the President the authority to conduct foreign policy. Monies appropriated by Congress and signed by the President must be spent by the end of the fiscal year. In the case of the Ukraine appropriation, the money was sent to Ukraine with time to spare.

Saying that President Trump withheld aid from Ukraine without legitimate “anti-corruption justification” requires Democrats to look past the fact that, at the time, Ukraine was rated the third-most corrupt nation on the planet. Further, the NDAA required certification that Ukraine had met the anti-corruption standards.

Chairman Schiff didn’t mention that this happened with Pakistan, the Northern Triangle countries of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador and from the nation of Lebanon. Why? Here’s Representative John Ratcliffe inquiring with State Department Undersecretary David Hale how often aid was withheld within the past year:

There goes that Schiff theory. Here’s another example of Democrat theory dressed up as proof:

In furtherance of this scheme, President Trump—directly and acting through his agents within and outside the U.S. government—sought to pressure and induce Ukraine’s newly-elected president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to publicly announce unfounded investigations that would benefit President Trump’s personal political interests and reelection effort. To advance his personal political objectives, President Trump encouraged the President of Ukraine to work with his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani.

Schiff’s Democrats don’t have proof of this accusation. In fact, the only proof in either direction comes from President Zelenskiy. He’s said twice that he was never pressured. This is third-hand testimony presented by Bill Taylor. It’s from one of the participants in the call. It isn’t surprising that Democrats have ignored President Zelenskiy’s statements that contradict their impeachment storyline. That’s what Democrats consistently do with exculpatory evidence. Either that or these Democrats insist that it’s just another discredited conspiracy theory.

It’s nothing of the sort. It’s an oft-repeated statement from Ukraine’s president. He was one of 2 people on the call. He knows what was said. He knows whether lethal military aid was tied to anything. That’s proof that would be admitted into any court in the United States. The Democrats’ hearsay testimony (like we heard from Bill Taylor) isn’t admissible anywhere in the United States.

The Democrats apparently want to become the first politicians to impeach a sitting president while using hearsay testimony. That isn’t just an abuse of political power. It’s corruption personified. If the same 232 Democrats vote to impeach President Trump who voted to open the inquiry, the American people will administer a punishment that will be studied for decades.

Jonathan Allen’s article is either proof of his stupidity or his corruption. After 5 days of hearings and 5 days of biased headlines, it’s difficult not to chalk it up to outright corruption. For the foreseeable future, the MSM won’t get the benefit of the doubt from conservatives.

According to Allen’s article, “a string of current and former administration officials collectively described for the House Intelligence Committee over the last two weeks how the president directed a concerted effort to aid his own re-election efforts at the expense of U.S. national security interests.” What Allen omits is the fact that these testifiers got demolished on cross-examination. This is a perfect example of the Democrats’ star witness getting demolished:

Jim Jordan grilled Ambassador Taylor without being nasty. He simply got Taylor to admit that Taylor testified as to what he’d heard. Jordan replied that that’s what the problem was. Taylor testified as to what he’d heard. In this instance, it’s what Taylor heard third-hand. That’s what happened to the Democrats’ star witness on the first day of public testimony.

Mike Turner’s cross-examination of Gordon Sondland was pretty aggressive:

Rep. Turner questioned Ambassador Sondland:

Turner: No one on this planet told you that this aid was tied to investigations. Yes or no?”
Sondland: “Yes.”

Turner, who called Sondland’s testimony “somewhat circular,” questioned the ambassador’s assertion that “everyone was in the loop.” “If Giuliani didn’t give you any expressed statement, then it can’t be that you believed this [about the connection between investigations and aid] from Giuliani,” Turner said. “Is that your testimony today, Amb. Sondland? That you have evidence that Donald Trump tied the investigations to aid because I don’t think you’re saying that.”

Sondland said he was “presuming” that is what Trump meant.

“The way it was expressed to me was that the Ukrainians had a long history of committing to things privately and then never following through, so President Trump presumably, again communicated through Mr. Giuliani, wanted the Ukrainians on record publicly that they were going to do these investigations. That’s the reason that was given to me,” Sondland said.

In Taylor’s instance, he’d spoken 3 times with President Zelenskiy in a short period of time. In none of those instances did attach conditionality to the lethal military aid. In Sondland’s instance, he called President Trump directly to ask what he wanted with regard to the aid. President Trump said “I don’t want anything. No quid pro quo. I just want him to do what he campaigned on.”

Yesterday, David Holmes testified that it was his “clear impression” that the lethal military aid was tied to President Zelenskiy starting an investigation of Burisma. Burisma is the corrupt natural gas company that Hunter Biden got a no-show job with that paid him $50,000-$83,000 a month. That investigation didn’t happen. So much for clear impressions.

Gregg Jarrett’s article highlights the fatal flaw with the testifiers’ testimony:

These hearings have revealed a common and consistent thread. None of the witnesses have provided any direct evidence that President Trump committed an impeachable act. Instead, they have offered an endless stream of hearsay, opinion and speculation.

Of all of the people who testified, only Sondland had talked directly with President Trump.

Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, who testified on Day Two of the hearings, was fired months before the July 25th Trump-Zelenskiy phone call. That caused Devin Nunes to question why she was even there. Lt. Col. Vindman “testified that he felt ‘concerned’ about Trump’s conversation with Zelenskiy.”

The American people aren’t fooled. The TV viewership started off mediocre, then went downhill after that. President Trump’s approval rating went up. He’s now ahead of the Democrats’ top 4 candidates in Wisconsin. The momentum has switched.

If Democrats were smart, they’d put down their shovels and stop digging. That isn’t what’s likely to happen, though.

What’s becoming perfectly clear is that Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Impeachment Committee, is an autocrat. Remember how he reacted when Elise Stefanik challenged him? Let’s refresh everyone’s memory:

After Friday’s hearing, House Impeachment Committee Republicans noted that Chairman Schiff’s Democrats established rules that prevent committee members from using testimony if the transcripts haven’t been made public:

Ratcliffe: Several Democrat members of this House Intel committee have already voted to impeach this president. They’ve already made up their minds without regard to evidence. Yes, this is dead on arrival at the Senate without looking at the most important witnesses. They don’t want the whistleblower to testify because we now know that that person coordinated with Schiff’s committee in order for that person to become the whistleblower. Schiff hasn’t even released the first transcript of the first witness (the IC IG) because it will tell you what the IG knew and didn’t know about the relationship between Schiff and the whistleblower based on what the whistleblower and Schiff did or didn’t reveal to the IG.

This isn’t a hearing as much as it’s a made-for-TV docudrama. The first 3 testifiers aren’t witnesses because they didn’t witness anything pertaining to this sham. Of Ms. Yovanovitch, Rep. Nunes rightly stated that he didn’t know why she was there considering the fact that she didn’t have first- or second-hand knowledge of the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call because she’d been fired from her position in Ukraine. William Taylor and George Kent didn’t provide any evidence of anything, much less proof of high crimes, though Taylor provided the insight that President Trump was corrupting “official US foreign policy.” That’s despite the fact that presidents, not diplomats, according to the Constitution, establish official US foreign policy.

Former CIA Operations Officer Bryan Dean Wright wrote this article in February, 2017:

Over the past few months, America has lurched from partisan warfare to the cliffs of an existential crisis. Multiple reports show that my former colleagues in the intelligence community have decided that they must leak or withhold classified information due to unsettling connections between President Trump and the Russian Government.

Said an intelligence officer: “I know what’s best for foreign policy and national security… And I’m going to act on that.” Some of us might applaud this man, including a few of my fellow Democrats. In their minds, this is a case of Mr. Smith Goes to Langley to do battle against a corrupt President Trump. One small problem. The intelligence officer quoted above was actually Aldrich Ames, a CIA traitor whose crime of treason in the 1980s and 1990s resulted in the compromise of more than 100 assets. Many were tortured and executed as a result.

Ames’ flawed logic is eerily similar to that of his present-day colleagues who are engaged in a shadow war with their commander in chief. They, too, have decided that their superior judgment is more important than following the law.

Adam Schiff isn’t a CIA officer but he’s part of the cabal that’s decided that they, not the American people, should decide who’s fit or unfit for serving as commander-in-chief.

That makes Schiff both an autocrat and a fascist. The fact that Schiff considers himself a Democrat is virtually irrelevant. He has little in common with Hubert Humphrey or Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

However, some of America’s spies are deciding that that’s not enough. For reasons of misguided righteousness or partisan hatred, they’ve taken it upon themselves to be judge, jury, and executioner. They have prosecuted their case in the court of public opinion, with likeminded media outlets such as CNN, The New York Times, and the Washington Post serving as court stenographers.

Elected by no one, responsible only to each other, these spies have determined that Trump is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. Days ago, they delivered their verdict. According to one intelligence official, the president “will die in jail.”

Schiff isn’t a spy but he determined years ago that President Trump should “die in jail.” He’s orchestrated the rigged hearings that’ve produced nothing. Finally, Wright wrote:

During my time as a CIA officer, I quickly learned why all these rules were in place. I read people’s emails. I listened to phone calls. I recruited assets that told the dirtiest and most embarrassing of secrets. I came to realize that my power was both an awesome responsibility and, at times, wickedly seductive.

Schiff’s lack of character caused him to play judge, jury and executioner. That’s unacceptable.

This summer, impeachment Democrats tried stirring up passion for impeachment by having Robert Mueller testify. That was a historic failure, with Mueller essentially admitting that he didn’t write the report with his name on it. The Democrats’ next failure was with the Lewandowski hearing. At that hearing, Lewandowski toyed with Chairman Nadler to such an extent that it cost Nadler his opportunity to shine as chairman of the impeachment hearings.

This NY Post editorial proves that practice doesn’t always make perfect:

Democrats must have learned from the disastrous public hearings they’ve held in their attempt to impeach President Trump: Now, apparently, their witnesses must audition first behind closed doors before they go live before the TV cameras.

That was the case with the Dems’ “star” witnesses, US Chargé d’affaires for Ukraine Bill Taylor and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent, who testified behind closed doors before appearing for Wednesday’s televised impeachment show. And for former US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, who debuts on the small screen Friday.

Kent, Taylor and Yovanovitch are leading off the Democrats’ case for impeachment. The thing that they’ve got in common is that none of them have firsthand knowledge of what happened. They can offer opinions on what US foreign policy should be but that’s it. Policy differences between the President and career bureaucrats doesn’t amount to an impeachable offense. In fact, it isn’t close to that threshold.

The lesson to be learned is that this is the wimpiest set of facts ever to be considered for impeachment. Last night, it was reported that Ukrainian Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko told reporters that “Ambassador Sondland did not tell us, and did not tell me exactly, about the relation between the [military] assistance and the investigations. I have never seen a direct link between investigations and security assistance. Yes, investigations were mentioned, you know, in a presidential conversation. But there was no clear connection between these events.”

That’s firsthand information on the central issue of the Democrats’ case. It utterly demolishes the Democrats’ theory that President Trump tried extorting or bribing President Zelenskiy into investigating Joe and Hunter Biden. This Trump-hater should ride off into the sunset because she’s a bitter partisan:

The truth is that Democrats simply don’t have evidence to support their impeachment theory. Though they won’t admit it, it’s getting close to the time when the jury cries out ‘Game. Set. Match.’ Get out the jelly, folks. These Democrats are toast.

After reading House GOP Whip Steve Scalise’s op-ed, it’s easy to decide what the House should focus on. Democrats chose faux impeachment proceedings, complete with faux due process and faux solemnity. Meanwhile, Republicans use the tools available to the minority to push for ratification of the USMCA, aka NAFTA 2.0.

Democrats’ loss of interest in legislating is particularly bad when it comes to the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). USMCA is the Trump administration’s replacement for the outdated NAFTA agreement, which was passed back in the 1990s, in a much different business and trade environment than the one we know now. USMCA is widely bipartisan, supported by everyone from trade groups to farmers, and could be the law of the land as soon as this year if Democrats would just put it on the House floor for a vote.

In other words, Democrats could put the bill on the House floor this week and see USMCA start creating jobs comfortably before Halloween. They’ve chosen instead to pursue history. These Democrats want to become the first group of politicians to impeach a president without evidence.

This is important:

The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) — the independent, bipartisan agency charged with providing trade expertise to Congress and the President — estimated that USMCA would create 176,000 jobs and raise our GDP by $68.2 billion. Our exports to Canada would increase by $19.1 billion and our exports to Mexico would increase by $14.2 billion. Most importantly, USITC notes “the agreement would likely have a positive impact on all broad industry sectors within the U.S. economy.”

During next year’s campaign, rest assured that Republicans will ask Democrats, especially freshmen Democrats from Rust Belt and agricultural swing districts, why they didn’t push Democrat leadership to vote on pro-agriculture, pro-manufacturing treaties sooner. Those Democrats won’t have an answer during the campaign. It’s fitting that those Democrats won’t have DC jobs in January, 2021.

How often do we have the opportunity to pass a mutually-beneficial, bipartisan trade deal that will buoy all sectors of our economy? This historic, once-in-a-generation agreement is exactly the kind of legislation the American people send us to Congress to enact. We can level the playing field for American workers, farmers, ranchers, and businesses.

It’s time Pelosi’s Do-Nothing Democrats did something productive. The next time Pelosi’s Do-Nothing Democrats do something productive, it’ll be the first time they’ll do something productive this session.

According to Sean Davis’ article, the snitch’s complaint (my word, not Sean’s) put together by the snitch’s legal team has some frightening similarities to the Steele Dossier. In Sean’s article, he highlights the fact that Steele’s dossier didn’t use people’s names:

Steele hadn’t gathered or witnessed any of this evidence first-hand. Rather, he relied on anonymous sources, many of them third-hand. “Source B asserted that the Trump operation was both supported and directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin,” Steele wrote. “Source A confided that the Kremlin had been feeding Trump and his team valuable intelligence on his opponents,” including Hillary Clinton, Steele claimed.

Let’s compare this with the snitch’s complaint:

“I was told that a State Department official” did this or that. “I heard from multiple US officials” that such and such. “Officials have informed me. …” And so on. Much like Steele, the Ukraine informant lacked first-hand access to evidence he claimed proved Trump’s guilt. It must have been hard to blow an accurate whistle when the whistleblower wasn’t even in the same room.

Why are we protecting a snitch that doesn’t rely on their own observations? That isn’t a whistleblower. That’s a Page 6 wannabe. House Republicans should create a firestorm that highlights the similarities between Steele’s discredited dossier and this snitch’s questionable second-hand allegations. This should be raised as a point of order or point of parliamentary procedure or some such thing. The point should be highlighted that the allegation-maker doesn’t have first-hand information for the committee. Though the Agenda Media, aka the MSM, won’t run it, real journalists like Katie Pavlich, Ed Morrissey, Guy Benson, etc. will push this story out to their readers, where it will gain a life of its own.

The snitch’s story is amplified through a compliant media that accepts everything as Gospel fact:

The questionable use of media sources to buttress hearsay claims is also consistent across both documents. After Steele compiled his dossier, he peddled the allegations to numerous reporters, who then dutifully reported them as fact. The Obama administration then cited those articles, which were sourced directly to Steele and his dossier, as proof of the validity of the allegations. One article was given to a federal intelligence court to justify wiretaps on a Trump campaign affiliate. The information it alleged was false.

Likewise, the Ukraine whistleblower repeatedly cited articles from The New York Times, Politico and even a report from former Clinton flack-turned-ABC-newsman George Stephanopoulos as evidence of the alleged conspiracy. It isn’t known whether he or his sources provided information used in any of the cited articles.

If I didn’t know better, I’d swear that the same people who tried to sabotage President Trump with Russiagate are attempting to impeach President Trump with Snitchgate. The tactics are the same. In both cases, the names have been either withheld or made up to protect the snitch.

I just finished reading the transcript of President Trump’s phone call with President Zelenskiy. There’s no question that President Trump brought up Biden’s son late in the conversation. I still don’t see the quid pro quo, though. The fact that it wasn’t one of the first things they spoke about speaks to President Trump’s priorities.

The other thing that’s noteworthy is what wasn’t said. At no point did President Trump use US military aid as a tool to insure Ukraine’s investigation of Hunter Biden. It simply isn’t there, not even in a dog whistle.

Republicans should highlight that fact frequently. If Republicans take out that leg of the Democrats’ impeachment stool, Democrats will be screwed for 2020. Democrats haven’t passed anything that’s improved the economy, fought the opioid epidemic, fixed our immigration and asylum laws or helped eliminate MS-13 here in the United States. Without question, Democrats have morphed into the Impeachment Party.

I get it that Chris Coons needs to run interference for Joe Biden. After all, Coons represents Delaware, just like Biden did. Nonetheless, it’s a bit much that he’d make this foolish statement with this video circulating everywhere:

Next, here’s what Sen. Coons said:

My gut reaction is ‘here we go again.’ In the 2016 campaign, President Trump repeated baseless allegations about Hillary’s emails over and over and over, to the point where the average voter couldn’t really tell you what it was actually about, but they just had the vague impression that something inappropriate had happened. That is exactly what President Trump is trying to do here, and I hope that both the media won’t take the bait and simply repeat these baseless allegations.

This isn’t ‘Here we go again’ with baseless allegations. It’s ‘here we go again’ with Biden foolishly shooting his mouth off again. What type of idiot brags that he got a prosecutor fired who’s investigating his son? That’s as foolish as it gets. That’s Biden for you.

This won’t finish well for VP Biden or Democrats like Adam Schiff, (D-Calif.). Though he doesn’t know it yet, Schiff is about to find out what it’s like to play the part of the dog who’s chasing a car, then accidentally catches it. If the transcript is released, which seems inevitable at this point, it’s likely to show that President Trump talked to the Ukrainian Prime Minister to investigate corruption in his country. Here is President Trump explaining why he told Prime Minister Zelensky to investigate Vice President Biden’s son:

It’s perfectly acceptable for President Trump to tell Ukraine to clean up its act. As President Trump said, trying to clean up corruption is part of the mandate for why he got elected. Further, there’s no question that Ukraine has had corruption issues for a while.

Democrats know this. They’re just hoping to defeat President Trump before this ‘bombshell’ blows up in their face.

President Trump doesn’t need my unsolicited advice on China. Still, that’s what I’m about to offer the Leader of the Free World. President Trump needs to know that the American people stand with him against China’s predatory trade practices. President Trump also needs to know that, like him, we understand that these negotiations require a long-game approach. Finally, President Trump needs to know that we’d value him calling China’s BS as spin.

Recently, China’s vice premier said something truly insulting when he said “We welcome enterprises from all over the world, including the United States, to invest and operate in China. We will continue to create a good investment environment, protect intellectual property rights, promote the development of smart intelligent industries with our market open, resolutely oppose technological blockades and protectionism, and strive to protect the completeness of the supply chain.”

What a crock! That statement shouldn’t be left to stand. It’s insulting to people who’ve had their intellectual property stolen by the Chinese government.

Mr. President, thanks for letting China know that you won’t hesitate in pushing China’s economy to the brink. This toughness is affecting businesses but it’s worth it, but only if we get a fair deal from China.

Mr. President, while you’re fighting the Chinese on trade details, I’d throw this information back in the faces of your domestic political enemies:

The market is now dominated by fears of a portending U.S. recession, although the American economy is actually holding up, and much of the U.S. economy is made up of consumption, Innes said. If interest rates come down, he added, consumer spending is likely to go up, working as a buffer for the economy.

Yes, this trade war is affecting the economy. Capitulating, though, will only make things worse. If we blink, China will be emboldened. That isn’t what we want. Personally, I’d prefer keeping the pressure on China’s throat until they capitulate.

Finally, Mr. President, I’d highlight what James Roberts said in this interview:

Are these trade wars causing a slowdown? Without question. Are they pushing us into a recession? Let’s put it this way — there’s a better chance that the anti-Trump media will try pushing the US economy into a recession than there is of the US-China trade war pushing us into a recession.

Now that it’s over, let’s review President Trump’s Salute to America event. The Democrats’ unpresidential presidential candidates took to the airwaves to predict that President Trump would politicize his “Salute to America” event on Independence Day. Predictably, these Democrat presidential candidates got it badly wrong. Tulsi Gabbard got it wrong, saying “The self-serving politician that he is, Trump has succeeded in making July 4th about himself, and in doing so, further divided our country. This on a day when our nation’s president should be uniting us.”

Joe Biden, aka Sleepy Joe, criticized President Trump, saying “Will he speak to the example America must set to inspire the world? Will he offer a robust defense of the democratic values that have always been our strength in times of crisis? We all know the answer to that. Donald Trump is incapable of celebrating what makes America great — because he doesn’t get it.”

Biden is a bull-shitter. He’s always been a gaffe machine. He’s a total idiot in this interview:

Starting at around the 10:00 mark, Biden made these idiotic statements:

Look what’s happening with Putin. While Putin is trying to undo our elections, he is undoing elections in Europe. Look what’s happened in Hungary. Look what’s happened in Poland. Look what’s happened in Moldova. Do you think that would’ve happened under my watch? Or under Barack’s watch? You can’t answer that but I can. It wouldn’t have. And it didn’t.

That’s a pile of BS. Apparently, Biden thinks we’re stupid. The Mueller Report stated quite clearly that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. You can’t blame the Trump administration for not doing anything to stop that attack because, at that point, there officially wasn’t a Trump administration. The administration that let the Russians tamper with our election was the Obama administration. That’s an indisputable fact.

President Trump’s Salute to America featured a speech that was really more of a history lesson than anything else. He talked about inventor like Orville and Wilbur Wright, Thomas Edison, trailblazers like Amelia Earhart and Lewis and Clark, civil rights leaders like Harriet Tubman, Fredrick Douglass and Clarence Henderson. President Trump didn’t shy away from telling the stories about the US military’s acts of bravery. Here’s one story that jumped out at me:

A generation later, the Army returned to Europe, and embarked upon a great crusade. With knives and rifles in hand, the Rangers scaled the cliffs of Normandy. The 101st Airborne leapt into the danger from above, illuminated only by enemy flares, explosions, and burning aircraft. They threw back the Nazi empire with lightning of their own, from the turrets of Sherman tanks and the barrels of the M1 rifle. In the darkness of the Battle of the Bulge, with Nazis on every side, one soldier is reported to have said: “They’ve got us surrounded again, the poor bastards.”

If that’s the Democrats’ definition of a self-serving speech, then they need a different dictionary because that one’s worthless.

Let’s be honest, though. It isn’t that Democrats are stupid. It’s that their hatred of President Trump is that intense. It isn’t disputable that Democrats, time after time, let this hatred get the better of them. At times like these, it’s virtually all-consuming.

Just once, I’d love to see Democrats put the US first for an extended period of time rather than put partisanship first. If that ever happened, the average person would be astonished at the great things that could get accomplished.

If Democrats don’t adopt that mindset, they should prepare for an electoral landslide in November, 2020.

Democrats risk sounding like they hate America. In the aftermath of Iran’s shooting down of an unmanned US drone, Sen. Schumer said “The president may not intend to go to war here, but we’re worried that he and the administration may bumble into a war.”

There’s no indication that President Trump is interested in military action. There’s a far greater likelihood that Israel would take military action than there is of the US hitting Iran militarily. Sen. Schumer knows this. It’s just that he couldn’t resist taking a political cheap shot at President Trump. It didn’t bother Sen. Schumer that he took that cheap shot while President Trump was dealing with a national security crisis.

That’s why I’m starting to think that there aren’t many pro-American Democrats left. With Democrats, it’s always about partisanship. It isn’t about doing what’s right. This should bother people, too:

Later in the day, Pelosi planned to hold a briefing for the House Democratic caucus with Wendy Sherman, who helped negotiate the Iran nuclear agreement that Trump withdrew from, and former CIA Director John Brennan.

Why on God’s green earth would you have one of the idiots that negotiated the disastrous Iran nuclear agreement and a political hack brief people on the Iran situation?

John Brennan is stupid. He doesn’t belong briefing a fifth grade class about bullies. He certainly doesn’t belong in a meeting on Capitol Hill briefing congresscritters about an international crisis. Then there’s this:

“We have to be strong and strategic about how we protect our interests. We also cannot be reckless in what we do. I don’t think the president wants to go to war. There’s no appetite for going to war in our country,” she said at her weekly news conference on Capitol Hill. “This is a dangerous neighborhood. A miscalculation on either side could provoke something that could be very bad in terms of security and our interests.”

She’s right. “This is a dangerous neighborhood.” It was already dangerous prior to the Obama administration. Rather than taking steps to make the region more safe, the Obama administration, from a policy standpoint, poured a gallon of white gas on the region by signing the JCPOA, which now has Iran at the brink of nuclear weapons capability. The JCPOA didn’t prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. It just put them on a predictable glidepath towards getting a nuclear capability.

Though Democrats won’t admit it, thus far, President Trump has handled this crisis perfectly. He’s worked hard to de-escalate the situation while Iran has tried escalating the situation. If Democrats don’t start showing a bipartisan streak, they’ll get tagged with this well-deserved cliché:

The only thing that Democrats have to offer is fear itself. Final point: If you’re a voter, would you really rather have Crazy Bernie, Sleepy Joe Biden or Pocahontas negotiating with the Iranians, the Chinese or Kim Jung-Un? Or would you rather have President Trump negotiating against those dictators or nations?