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.

Brent Bozell, Politics

Media Wail for Brennan and Clapper

Republican Sen. Rand Paul sent the media into another meltdown on July 23 when he called on President Trump to revoke the security clearance of former President Obama’s CIA Director John Brennan. He charged that Brennan is “monetizing” his privileges by becoming an on-air analyst for NBC News and MSNBC. That doesn’t even count Brennan’s speaking fees.

Brennan’s spouting inanities about treason that make a mockery of his former position is a disgraceful spectacle.

When John Gizzi of Newsmax asked White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders about Sen. Paul’s request, she said yes, and not just about Brennan’s clearance but that of other Obama appointees like former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former national security adviser Susan Rice. “The president is exploring the mechanisms to remove security clearance because they politicize and, in some cases, monetize their public service and security clearances,” she said.

Not surprisingly, the Trump-hating networks wailed and screamed — especially the ones paying Brennan (NBC and MSNBC) and Clapper (CNN). When these men come on television, they are treated as national treasures, described as nonpartisans and asked softball questions. Clapper’s toughest interrogator — the only one reminding viewers he lied to Congress — has been Meghan McCain on ABC’s “The View.” How is that not pertinent to his credibility?

Removing their clearances could be painted as petty, but it would also remove some insider glamor and any remaining shred of nonpartisanship — if you’re not paying attention to their wild talk on TV and Twitter about Trump’s “treasonous” actions and other assorted evils.

CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer even desperately claimed, “If you remove security clearances from a James Clapper, for example … that’s a potential national security threat.” Because no one upholds national security like … CNN? The network that falsely accused the U.S. military of gassing Laotians during the Vietnam War? The network that channeled Iraqi propaganda about America bombing baby-formula factories? The network that couldn’t show enough Abu Ghraib photos worldwide as it explained how each image was a terrorist recruitment poster?

On NBC, chief White House correspondent Hallie Jackson tried to claim that people like Brennan and Clapper are somehow bipartisan, a most laughable proposition. “Most of the officials worked for both Democrats and Republicans and have been tough on President Trump publicly,” she said. If you call Trump treasonous, NBC calls that “tough.” If you suggest these former Obama aides are greedy partisans, NBC suggests that’s “authoritarian.”

What’s comical is reporters like Jackson accusing Trump of “politicizing” this fracas … when these Obama intelligence officials were spying on the Trump campaign in 2016, unmasking identities in a search for dirt to bury him. As top FBI officials probed the Russia ties of Trump aides, they were trading texts about how Trump had to be stopped. Even now, getting paid by highly ideological CNN and MSNBC to offer regular Trump-bashing analysis is politicizing intelligence. When in the last 50 years have we seen our intelligence officials so wildly exploit their power and moral authority (such as it is) to get a president removed from office?

The networks have (SET ITAL) always (END ITAL) politicized intelligence, back to the Vietnam War days. The FBI and the CIA were under fervent leftist attack in the 1970s. They seemed to be filled with villains every time the Republicans were in office — with former President Nixon and Watergate, former President Reagan and the Iran-contra affair, and former President George W. Bush and the Iraq War. But when they’re scheming alongside Obama to help Hillary Clinton win, well, that’s somehow patriotic activity.

The outraged journalists are not seriously addressing their own self-interest here: how they may have used these Obama officials as anonymous sources to ruin Trump since 2015. We may never know how useful they were, but the media ardor on behalf of these “nonpartisans” should color everyone’s view of this kerfuffle.

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, 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.

Brent Bozell, Media, Politics

Showtime ‘Fakes News’ for the Left

CBS’s pay-cable Showtime channel is the latest backer of con artist/”comedian” Sacha Baron Cohen’s performance art, as in the movies “Borat” and “Bruno.” It’s a new TV show called “Who Is America?” that is designed, as usual, to mock Americans — mostly conservatives — as gullible and stupid.

The most prominent victim this time around is former Gov. Sarah Palin, who said she was asked to appear in a “legit Showtime historical documentary” but instead was pranked by Cohen and asked questions she said were “full of Hollywoodism’s disrespect and sarcasm.” Cohen also apparently asked former Vice President Dick Cheney to autograph a “waterboard kit.” The promise of these embarrassments thrills the left. It was not an auspicious debut: It drew just 327,000 viewers. Among the key demographic of adults ages 18 to 49, it pulled a low 0.1 rating.

Even as the first show began with Cohen pulling a prank on Sen. Bernie Sanders, it’s Cohen’s fraudulent tea party patriot who’s the joke. When Sanders does his usual socialist schtick about redistributing the wealth, Cohen’s character says, “I prefer to be anally raped than give one more dollar to the Treasury.” Sanders just calmly watches him … which might make most viewers suspect Sanders knows what’s being filmed.

One Cohen character is supposed to mock the left, but he ends up making two supporters of President Trump look like they were trying way too hard not to overreact to his idiocy. His bald but ponytailed NPR-T-shirt-wearing lefty character claims he makes his daughter “free-bleed” during her period on the American flag. Then he waits for the Trump fans to freak out, or, more likely, be grossed out. Cohen’s humor has all the maturity and sophistication of a 13-year-old boy.

Several people dismissed Cohen’s fraudulent act within minutes. One was former ABC News star Ted Koppel. He says Cohen’s crew lied shamelessly to him and said the Showtime program being filmed was called “Age of Reason,” and Cohen quickly showed he wasn’t the slightest bit reasonable. The network attracted Koppel with a request full of flattery, saying: “Our project’s goal is to cut through the noise and disinformation surrounding today’s most important issues in a way that’s clear and accessible to everyday Americans. As one of the world’s most well-respected media figures who has really seen it all throughout his career, we’d be thrilled to have Mr. Ted Koppel on our program.”

Another tough customer was a gun-shop owner in Riverside, California, named Norris Sweidan. “I’m looking at the producer and I’m just like, ‘Am I being fooled right here?” Sweidan said. “And I just kept looking at the guy and I was like, ‘You’re Borat.’ As soon as I said that, his eyes just looked at me … and he did a turn right out the door.” Sweidan said he knew “Borat” went there to mock gun owners and gun shops. “He was fake. The producers were fake. The show was fake. And Showtime is fake, to be honest with you,” he said. “They want a real story. Come talk to us. We’ll give you a real story.”

Showtime Networks CEO David Nevins shares Cohen’s lack of shame. In a statement announcing this shady series, he claimed: “He is the premier provocateur of our time, but not for the sake of ‘gotcha’ moments. Behind the elaborate setup is a genuine quest for the truth about people, places and politics.”

It’s more like “Behind the elaborate lying is a genuine quest to show the ‘truth’: that conservatives are morons.” The Hollywood left cannot keep greenlighting nasty shows like this and then claiming it is merely trying to explore America, not expose its contempt for the flyover states.

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, 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.

Economy & Investments, Politics

Newsflash: Trump Economy Working for Americans

A new poll released by Emerson College reveals not only a four-point jump in President Trump’s approval rating but also a solid 42% of Americans believe they are financially better off than under President Obama.  Still, Democrats are back in the lead over the GOP 49 percent to 42 on the generic ballot. Now for the schizophrenic news: of those polled, only 54% favored capitalism and another 24% were inclined to socialism. Some people clearly need to see more news about Venezuela. Those folks aren’t so enamored with socialism these days.

Here’s more from PJ Media…

It’s no secret we live in a divided nation. Tribalism reigns supreme, particularly when it comes to President Donald Trump. But a new survey sheds some interesting light on Americans’ perceptions of the president.

Emerson College has released a new poll which shows that Trump’s approval rating has jumped four points over six months ago — 43 percent in July versus 39 percent in January — while his disapproval rating has dipped two points to 50 percent.

Perhaps the most interesting feature of this poll is the response to the question of whether those surveyed believed they’re better off financially under Trump as opposed to under Barack Obama. A solid 42 percent believe that they’re better off under the current administration.

Here’s how responses to that question broke down:

When asked if they (voters) were better or worse off financially than they were two years ago 42% responded better off, while 26% said worse off. Males appear to be doing better in a Trump economy than females: 49% of males reported doing better, while 21% said they were doing worse. Alternatively 36% of females reported they were better off, while 30% said they were doing worse. Perceptions of the financial situation varied by party and race, Democrats had the lowest improvement at 33%, with 32% doing worse. Among Hispanics, a distinct majority – 62% believed they were better off, while 25% thought they were worse off. Blacks had a reversed perspective with 30% reporting they were doing better and 40% doing worse.

In spite of the rosier financial outlook, Democrats took a stronger lead in the generic congressional ballot portion of this poll. Democrats extended a lead over the GOP to the tune of 49 percent to 42 percent. That’s a four-point jump for Democrats over six months ago.

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.”