Big govt, Politics

Trump Inks Massive Trade Deal With EU

The leftmedia are having a really difficult time these days pinning a scandal on President Trump and getting it to stick. Just when they think they’ve got him in a corner, a new victory is announced. Russia collusion indictment? North Korea is de-nuclearizing. Stormy Daniels talks? Trump takes NATO to the woodshed. Attorney’s office gets raided? Trump nominates another conservative to the Supreme Court. Move over, Bill Clinton. Teflon Trump is in office. This week the big news is that Trump has inked a major trade deal with the European Union worths billions, which also happens to be a finger in the eye of China. Winning!

Here’s more from PJ Media…

They must be burning whatever gallons of midnight oil they have left at MSNBC, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, CBS, NBC, ABC, etc. — all the propaganda organs of the Democratic Party — trying to figure out how to downplay the agreement Donald Trump just made with European Union President Jean-Claude Juncker, but it’s not going to be easy. This is the beginning of a massive free trade deal between Europe and the U.S. with zero tariffs outside the auto industry.  If even half of it comes true, there will be a (okay, why not?) YUUUGE growth in trade benefitting both sides of the Atlantic.

Forget porn stars. Forget tapes. Forget evil Vlad and Rocket Man. Forget insulting our NATO partners (whatever that means). Forget that pseudo-socialist with the hyphenated name. Forget Mueller, sleazy Strzok , Adam “Leaker” Schiff, Fingers Clapper, Knuckles Brennan, Rocko Rosenstein, or any of the sordid crew.  Forget even Twitter! (well, maybe). By comparison, those are all sideshows. As everyone knows, in politics, “It’s the economy, stupid!”

Or, put another way, “It’s the art of the deal.”  And that’s what came through today and then some.  This is the most significant moment of Trump’s presidency since the tax law passed — and he’s had plenty, more than any president of any of our lifetimes if you actually think about it.

Big govt, Courts, Politics

Trump Administration Takes Ax to Union Dues Skimming

A few weeks ago the Supreme Court released a number of landmark decisions, among which was an end to forced union dues for employees who choose not to become union members. That decision is providing support for the Trump administration’s axing of an Obama-era rule that allowed states to skim funds off the top of Medicaid stipends to workers, which were being funneled to unions. If the rule is upheld, that practice will come to a swift end. In its wake, workers will be able to keep more of their own money, and unions will have less of it to give to Democrats running for office. It’s a win-win.

Here’s more from The Daily Signal…

Sally Coomer of Seattle, who cares for her disabled adult daughter at home, doesn’t like the fact that union dues are deducted from the Medicaid payment she gets for her services under a Washington state policy.

“The money that is taken out in union dues, if it was not siphoned off, could be used to provide for more care,” Coomer told The Daily Signal about the Medicaid stipend given to home care providers.

“A lot of family members forgo careers to take care of family members and are working in situations where they are really financially struggling,” she said.

Washington is one of 11 states where the state governments work with public-sector unions to automatically deduct a portion of the Medicaid stipend and divert it to unions representing state employee unions.

The other states are California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, Oregon, and Vermont, according to the State Policy Network, a conservative think tank that focuses on state issues.

Big govt, Courts, Politics

Pres. Trump Blasts Released FBI FISA App

President Trump took to Twitter yesterday to blast the FBI FISA Warrant application, which was released to the public over the weekend. The documents were heavily redacted but included plenty of information to corroborate Republicans’ arguments that the FISA Warrant on Trump adviser Carter Page was based on dubious ‘intelligence’ cobbled together by biased FBI agents in concert with Chris Steele, who also happened to be colluding with the DNC and the Hillary campaign. And let’s remember that the entire impetus for the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller was based on the possibility of collusion with Russia which was alleged in the FISA Warrant. This house of cards is about to crumble, folks.

Here’s more from Breitbart…

President Donald Trump highlighted Monday the revelation of the FISA warrant used to spy on one of his foreign policy advisers Carter Page.

The heavily redacted set of documents were released to the public on Saturday, revealing that the unverified dossier created by Christopher Steele and paid for by the DNC was used to spy on the Trump campaign.

“So we now find out that it was indeed the unverified and Fake Dirty Dossier, that was paid for by Crooked Hillary Clinton and the DNC, that was knowingly & falsely submitted to FISA and which was responsible for starting the totally conflicted and discredited Mueller Witch Hunt!” Trump marveled on Twitter.

The president cited Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton who appeared on Fox and Friends to discuss the newly published information.

It was classified to cover up misconduct by the FBI and the Justice Department in misleading the Court by using this Dossier in a dishonest way to gain a warrant to target the Trump Team. This is a Clinton Campaign document. It was a fraud and a hoax designed to target Trump and the DOJ, FBI and Obama Gang need to be held to account. Source #1 was the major source. Avoided talking about it being the Clinton campaign behind it. Misled the Court to provide a pretext to SPY on the Trump Team. Not about Carter Page..was all about getting Trump. Carter Page wasn’t a spy, wasn’t an agent of the Russians – he would have cooperated with the FBI. It was a fraud and a hoax designed to target Trump.

Trump argued that the information was enough to shut down the investigation led by Special Cousel Robert Mueller.

Big govt, Politics

Dems’ Internal Divisions Obscure Path to November

Democrats just can’t seem to get on the same sheet of music. For over a year now, Maxine Waters has been the favorite mouthpiece of the fringe left calling for impeachment of President Trump. But a larger contingent of Democrats has been quietly telling her to shut her trap. Perhaps it’s because Trump’s numbers are good. And now, on the heels of the Putin summit, Democrats are tripping over themselves to prove why he’s such a bad guy, but then pulling back from the brink of more calls for impeachment. That’s the sign of a party in disarray when there isn’t even agreement on disagreement. All the more reason why that blue wave has likely thinned to a trickle before November.

Here’s more from Fox News…

Midterm elections are usually a referendum on the president.

But in their effort to focus attention on President Trump, Democrats could make the midterms about their own divisions.

Trump’s assertion that Russia didn’t meddle in American elections sparked an inferno on the left. To progressives, the remarks epitomized what they see as the president’s deficiencies for office.

It was treachery. Sedition. Subversion. And from the president of the United States himself.

It would be easy to examine how Trump’s comments yet again placed congressional Republicans in a tough spot. GOPers have long grimaced about Trump emerging as their nominee, the “Access Hollywood” tape, his comments about Europe and NATO, “fire and fury” and the unilateral imposition of tariffs.

But the president’s statements may actually pose more peril to Democrats. Why? Much like Republicans, Democratic leaders appear paralyzed as to how to respond to the president – especially the episode in Helsinki. Top Democratic leaders in Washington want to be tough – but also serve as the voice of reason. They fear alienating swing voters. Meantime, liberals are prepared to go “Maxine Waters” on the president. The left wing is confounded why all Democrats don’t follow their lead.

Big govt, International, Politics

Trump’s Putin Summit May Be A Genius Move

By now, unless you’ve been hiding in a nuclear bunker for the last 48 hours, you’ve heard what an unmitigated disaster Trump’s summit with Putin was. Except maybe not. There’s an interesting theory that’s gaining steam among those paying close attention. If Trump would’ve gone in and blasted Putin for doing what we all know in fact he (or his surrogates) did, would we have gained anything? Negative, ghost rider. Trump knows that. So what if, instead, he’s playing a good-cop/bad-cop routine wherein he wins Putin’s favor in order to ‘keep his enemies closer’? If that’s the case, it’s brilliant.

Here’s more from PJ Media…

What?  Did you just read that headline correctly?

Yes, you did.  Writing it I assumed people’s heads would explode.  It’s about as far as you can can get from today’s conventional wisdom (i.e. what David Gergen thinks).  Virtually every member of the smart set from Pelosi to McCain to some ninety-five percent of the media, including several cowards on Fox News, to, alas, Lindsey Graham (who should know better) are going out of their minds excoriating Trump for being soft on Putin, even for being “owned” by the neo-Soviet strongman. John Brennan — once a communist himself, so he should know — accused Trump of treason.

Okay, time for that familiar cliche — the thought experiment.  Suppose Trump had done the opposite, exactly what these people demanded — verbally and viciously assaulted Putin for all his totalitarian tropes from annexing the Crimea to humiliating John Podesta for being so dumb as to fall for a phishing attack (all right — I’ll be fair. For invading the computers of Democratic Party operatives, allegedly to elect Trump) and so forth?

What would that have accomplished? The obvious answer is zilch.  Again the opposite would most likely have occurred.  Things, already bad, would have been set back further.  It’s human nature. You don’t have to be a personal acquaintance of Vladimir Putin to know that.  You only have to be breathing.

But… but…  then Trump shouldn’t have held the summit in the first place.

Big govt, Politics

Trump Plan Aims to Slash the Bureaucracy

Late last month the Trump administration released a plan in concert with key Senators designed to roll back the burgeoning bureaucracy in DC. It’s commonplace now that the lives and businesses of ordinary Americans are dictated more by the whims of anonymous bureaucrats than by anything decided directly by Congress. But if the plan is enacted, agencies begin to be slashed, combined or eliminated altogether. It’s part of a broader strategy that has been increasingly employed in agencies like the EPA, Department of Education and others whose aim is similar to that of the Reagan administration. Good riddance.

Here’s more from The Daily Signal…

President Donald Trump’s administration released a plan June 21 that, if enacted, would impose some order on the sprawling administrative state—something that is long overdue.

Decades of ceaseless expansion of the size and scope of the federal government have created a bloated and inefficient federal bureaucracy, replete with agencies and offices with overlapping functions.

The Rube Goldberg-esque structure of the federal bureaucracy is not only expensive, it thickens the web of government red tape, makes government services less efficient, and makes mission failure more likely by splintering simple jobs among diffuse agencies.

Trump’s plan would begin the long process of rearranging the overgrown federal bureaucracy by grafting together agencies that do similar work and pruning away offices that have outlived their usefulness.

However, while the president directs the executive branch, its structure is largely the product of Congress. Through the legislative process, it creates departments and agencies, establishes their responsibilities, and determines their funding.

While Congress sometimes delegates authority to the president to determine how staff and funds are deployed or even how an agency is organized, major shakeups require congressional action.

Big govt, Courts, Politics

Strzok and Khizr Khan

FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok told joint Judiciary and Oversight committees Thursday that his “We’ll stop it” text was in reference to then-candidate Donald Trump’s election. The trigger: candidate Trump’s remarks about restricting the entrance of Muslims from terror nations into the U.S. as hyperbolized by Khizr Khan, the Gold Star father of Army Capt. Humayun Khan who died while serving in Iraq. The trouble is there isn’t much context within or without the text transcript to bolster that claim. Just about anything could be attributed to the ‘it’ in question. But there’s plenty of other context to demonstrate a concerted effort by the FBI to ‘stop’ Trump’s election, period.

Here’s more from PJ Media…

FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok told a joint hearing of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees today that a text to his then-lover, FBI attorney Lisa Page, about stopping candidate Donald Trump was anger expressed in response to Trump verbally going after Gold Star parents Khizr and Ghazala Khan.

The Khans spoke at the 2016 Democratic National Convention to challenge Trump on comments he made on the campaign trail about restricting the entrance of Muslims into the country. Their son, Army Capt. Humayun Khan, was killed in Baqubah, Iraq, on June 8, 2004, as he stopped a suicide bomber from driving into a compound.

In August 2016, Page texted Strzok, “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” Strzok responded, “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.” The Justice Department’s inspector general determined that while texts between the two were inappropriate, investigators “did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed.”

“I think it’s important when you look at those texts that you understand the context in which they were made and the things that were going on across America,” Strzok told the committee. “In terms of the text ‘we will stop it,’ you need to understand that was written late at night, off the cuff and it was in response to a series of events that included then-candidate Trump insulting the immigrant family of a fallen war hero, and my presumption based on that horrible, disgusting behavior that the American population would not elect someone demonstrating that behavior to be president of the United States.”


Big govt, Brent Bozell, Media

New Jersey Votes to Fund the Media

In the liberal mind, the way to prove you value something is by funding it with taxpayer money. So if you love journalism, you take taxpayer money and give it to journalists.

It is a sacred mantra of the left that corporate funding of media inevitably results in a pro-corporate media bias. Consistency would dictate that government funding of media would lead to a pro-government bias.

Not in New Jersey. The idea of the press as a check and a balance on government has just been placed on the Jersey Turnpike and squashed to pieces.

Garden State legislators have approved a bill to use taxpayer money to support “grants to strengthen local news coverage,” starting with a $5 million kitty. The goal when the bill was first introduced was to have $20 million allocated toward the “civic information” fund every year for five years.

“Particularly during these uncertain times, we need a strong and free press, which we know is the best safeguard for truth in our state and the country,” State Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg declared. We’re supposed to believe this won’t make anyone with a press pass feel better about Weinberg and her fellow Democrats.

One reason Republicans in Congress never have the nerve to defund (or even cut) public broadcasting is fear of terrible publicity — not just from public radio and TV stations but from journalists in general. It’s not state-run TV, just statist-run TV.

Legislators argue that the state’s location between large media markets in New York City and Philadelphia lead to poor coverage of “hyperlocal issues” for most of the state. But CNN’s Brian Stelter was thrilled about going nationwide with this socialist notion. He tweeted, “What if every state provided some seed $$$ for local journalism — as a way to rebuild some of what’s been lost through years of” — private sector — “budget cuts and layoffs?”

The socialist advocacy group Free Press has been pushing for this for years, alongside its efforts to prevent any public broadcasting funding cuts. “Never before has a state taken the lead to address the growing crisis in local news,” proclaimed Mike Rispoli, the New Jersey director of the Free Press Action Fund. They talk in panicky tones about the “disappearance” of local news.

The question liberals never ask is this: Are newspapers and TV stations losing their audience because they’re too liberal? You can’t fix that by doubly reinforcing Democrat-friendly government-funded local news operations. Last year, The New York Times mourned layoffs at The Record of Bergen County because it broke the vastly overhyped Bridgegate scandal against former Gov. Chris Christie. To The Times, that’s a triumph of “news.” To Republicans, it reeks of a partisan media bias.

It also makes you wonder why any private-sector investor would try to bail out such a failing effort. Media owners like Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos or Carlos Slim get hailed as philanthropists for bailing out the liberal media. If you can’t make a profit, you can at least improve your own public relations.

Obviously, the collapse of classified-advertising revenue and the rise of online news have caused major problems for newspapers. Let us agree for the sake of argument that a) this affects local news more than national news and b) local news should be covered.

There are a growing number of liberal multibillionaires who could easily throw $5 million at this New Jersey effort instead of the government. Men like George Soros have poured millions of dollars into journalism to promote their political agenda, so why not “hyperlocal” news? Answer: There’s not enough glamor or political advantage in it. Besides, why should they? Let the little people do it with their tax dollars.

L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center. Tim Graham is director of media analysis at the Media Research Center and executive editor of the blog To find out more about Brent Bozell III and Tim Graham, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at


Big govt, International, Politics

Trump to NATO: Time to Ante Up

President Trump will be joining other Western chief executives in the upcoming NATO summit, but this time he’ll be calling for an ante up. He signaled earlier in the week his frustration with the fact that NATO has been benefitting from the US bankroll for far too long. And now it’s time for the other members to pay their ‘fair share’ of their military defense costs. In short, President Trump will likely tell NATO that ‘we are not the world’s piggy bank’. Look for cuts to defense spending in the European theater soon as Trump makes good on his promise to streamline the DOD.
Here’s more from Reuters…
President Donald Trump will tell fellow NATO countries at next week’s summit that the United States cannot be “the world’s piggy bank,” White House spokesman Hogan Gidley said on Tuesday.
“What the president is going to do is go into these meetings with the mindset to protect the American people, stand with our partners and allies – but as he has said many times before America is thought so often to be the world’s piggy bank. And that’s gotta stop,” Gidley told reporters as Trump flew to West Virginia. Trump has pressured some NATO allies to significantly increase military expenditure.
Big govt, Courts, Politics

Six Potential Candidates Lead the SCOTUS Short-List

With just days before President Trump’s anticipated July 9th announcement of his choice for Justice of the United States Supreme Court, the running list of 25 has six particular standouts.

That list includes: Amy Coney Barrett, Tom Hardiman, Brett Kavanaugh, Raymond Kethledge, Joan Larsen, Amul Thapar.

Note that half of the candidates could be spoilers for the left’s cries for more diversity on the bench.

The ages also could be a thorn in their collective side for decades to come given that most of them could serve for as many 30 years.

In short, this represents a worst case scenario for Dems. Next will be very interesting indeed.

Here’s more from The Daily Signal…

President Donald Trump is expected to announce July 9 his nominee to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. In 2016, Trump put together a list of potential Supreme Court picks during his campaign for president and has amended it twice—bringing the current total to 25 highly qualified conservative individuals.

Although the list is brimming with top-notch individuals, there are a few whose names appear to be rising to the top. A look at the judicial records and writings of these men and women reveals insights into their perspectives on a wide array of issues.