Politics

Trump names Robert O’Brien, hostage negotiator, as national security adviser

President Trump named his chief hostage negotiator as his national security adviser Wednesday, filling the role for a fourth time as he plots a stern response to Iran’s suspected role in attacking Saudi oil fields last weekend. Robert C. O’Brien will replace John R. Bolton, who was ousted last week amid clashes with key White House aides and Mr. Trump on topics such as Iran, North Korea and Venezuela. As the U.S. special presidential envoy for hostage affairs, Mr. O’Brien endeared himself to Mr. Trump by working to secure the release of pastor Andrew Brunson from Turkey and Americans held in Afghanistan, Libya and Yemen. He also spoke to Sweden about rapper A$AP Rocky’s legal troubles after an incident in Stockholm. “He did a tremendous job on hostage negotiations. Really tremendous, like unparalleled. We’ve had tremendous success in that regard,” Mr. Trump told White House reporters traveling with him in California. “I think we have a very good chemistry together, and I think we’re going to have a great relationship. He is a very talented man.” Mr. O’Brien, who accompanied Mr. Trump, called it a privilege to serve with the president. “We’ve got a number of challenges,” he said, “but there’s a great team in place.” The president is promoting Mr. O’Brien as he weighs a response to Iran’s suspected role in drone attacks Saturday that temporarily shut down half of the Saudi oil production. “We’ll see what happens. We have many options that we’re considering. There are many options,” Mr. Trump said. Mr. Trump heads to New York for the U.N. General Assembly session next week, meaning Mr. O’Brien could have an immediate impact. The national security adviser does not have to be confirmed by the Senate. “Robert’s a very experienced foreign policy figure with deep knowledge of United Nations, international organizations,” said Nile Gardiner, director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at The Heritage Foundation. He worked alongside Mr. O’Brien on Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential bid. “He’s a safe pair of hands,” Mr. Gardiner said. “He’s somebody who I think has very good instincts, a very good understanding of the challenges facing the United States as leader of the free world.” Mr. O’Brien worked under President George W. Bush as a representative to the U.N., continuing in Mr. Bolton’s footsteps as a Trump official with connections to the last Republican administration. Mr. Trump has grown tired of Bush veterans. Besides Mr. Bolton, his aides included Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, who sparred with Mr. Trump over immigration before her ouster. Mr. Bolton fought with top administration officials, but Mr. O’Brien is viewed as a team player. Mr. Trump, who bills himself as a deal-maker, was impressed by his track record as a negotiator. Mr. O’Brien has been “incredibly effective as the ambassador for these hostage negotiations,” said Kenneth R. Weinstein, president of the Hudson Institute. “He’s someone who has gone in, under the radar, and handles sensitive negotiations in a low-key manner.” Mr. Trump hailed Mr. O’Brien from the Oval Office in March during a welcome-home ceremony for Danny Burch, an oil worker held in Yemen for 18 months. In turn, Mr. O’Brien praised Mr. Trump for working to bring home Americans through “force of will,” without concessions or payments. Mr. O’Brien wrote a book in 2016, “While America Slept,” that was critical of President Obama’s 2015 nuclear pact with Iran and compared it to the appeasement of Adolf Hitler at Munich in 1938. Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who wants a muscular approach to Iran, said Mr. O’Brien is a good choice who will keep Mr. Trump on the right path. “He understands the world for the dangerous place it is. He’s got great negotiating skills as our hostage negotiator,” Mr. Graham said. “I think he will be a very sound policy adviser to the president of the United States.” Mr. O’Brien will be the president’s fourth national security adviser in less than three years.

While Mr. O’Brien’s credentials as a hostage negotiator, and accomplished attorney, are very solid, we do have some reservations about him taking on this new role as the President’s National Security Adviser.  Mr. O’Brien’s only military background was in the Army Reserves as a JAG officer (military lawyer).  So, not exactly much in the way of a national security background.  Raised Catholic, he converted to Mormonism in his twenties, and with this new appointment is the highest ranking Later Day Saint in our federal government.  We wish Mr. O’Brien all the best in this extremely important role.

Joe Biden wants ban on ‘magazines that can hold multiple bullets’

Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden either called for the banning of most handguns or displayed basic misunderstanding of the simplest of firearms terminology. Campaigning Monday in Iowa, Mr. Biden demanded the elimination of “magazines that can hold multiple bullets in them,” calling such a ban so obvious that only ill motive could explain it. “The idea that we don’t have elimination of assault-type weapons, magazines that can hold multiple bullets in them is absolutely mindless. It is no violation of the 2nd Amendment. It’s just a bow to the special interests of the gun manufacturers and the NRA,” he said at a Labor Day picnic in Cedar Rapids. The phrase “magazines that can hold multiple bullets” raised eyebrows, though. Ryan Saavedra of the Daily Wire explained why, while posting the clip. “Joe Biden makes the most extreme gun-control push of all the 2020 Democrat presidential candidates: Biden calls for banning ‘magazines that can hold multiple bullets in them.’ All magazines hold ‘multiple bullets,’ that’s the point. This call from Biden would ban most handguns,” Mr. Saavedra wrote. With the exception of old-fashioned revolvers, whose basic design concept has remained unchanged since the six-shooters of the Old West, modern-design handguns store multiple bullets in magazines.

Crazy ol’ Joe is the gift that keeps on giving..  Honestly, he’s not firing on all thrusters these days, and really should just retire.  He’s trying hard to pander to his liberal constituency during this primary season, and in the process making verbal gaffes like this on an almost daily basis.  Even his handlers are getting frustrated trying to get him to stay on script.  We just hope Joe continues to run his mouth and say things like this.    🙂

Gutfeld on Bernie’s comments about China

In an interview with The Hill, Democratic presidential candidate and avowed socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said China had done more to address extreme poverty than any country in history. “What we have to say about China, in fairness to China and its leadership is, if I’m not mistaken, they have made more progress in addressing extreme poverty than any country in the history of civilization, OK. So they’ve done a lot of things for their people,” Sanders said. He’s right. According to the World Bank, the number of poor in China went from 880 million in 1981, to less than 10 million. But I wonder how they did that? Well, the Chinese “socialists” killed millions of poor people, so there’s that. Dead people aren’t poor. Just dead. They called that the “Great Leap Forward.” After that, they used a tool Bernie despises: capitalism. It was only the Chinese rigorously adopted free-market principles, private ownership and decentralization, that they transformed their economy from a house of horrors to something much more humane. The things that saved a billion lives in China are the things Bernie thinks harmed our country. The lesson is that those who scream about inequality embrace ideas that create more inequality. By replacing equal opportunity with equal outcomes, you end up with two classes: the poor and the powerful. Which happened in China. And it seems to be happening in San Francisco, Los Angeles and Baltimore, too. Of course, China went “whole Communist,” resulting in mass murder, religious persecution, forced abortion and famine. The number of dead in China under Mao has to be counted in the tens of millions. So yeah, praise is in order for China finally coming around to abandoning bad ideas. Maybe Bernie should do the same.

Yeah…  I wouldn’t hold my breath on that, Greg.  As usual, Greg Gutfeld nails it with his pithy wit.  Bernie is an unbelievable hypocrite.  He’s a millionaire with three mansions, who underpays his own staff…and that’s just for starters..  And, this all the while he’s preaching his socialist nonsense; how the rich need to pay their “fair share.”  Hey Bernie!  How about you sell one of your three mansions.  After all, you don’t “need” all three.  And, why don’t you donate the proceeds to the poor.  Lead by example!  Unreal…  And, let’s not forget that Bernie and his then fiancé had their honeymoon in Moscow…back when it was the Soviet Union.  Think about that…especially those of us who remember those days..  An American couple having their honeymoon in the Soviet Union.  Wow..  Bernie is someone who hates America, and how it was founded.   He hates capitalism, and yet has greatly benefited from it with his book deals and so on.  Remember that the next time you see angry, crazy Bernie talking about a “living wage” or some other similar socialist bs.

Dianne Feinstein Falsely Claims ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Lowered Crime

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) claims the 1994 “assault weapons” ban lowered crime even though a Department of Justice report shows it had no impact on recorded figures. On August 20, 2019, Feinstein tweeted: “While the federal assault weapons ban was in effect (1994-2004), the number of gun massacres fell by 37% and the number of gun massacre deaths fell by 43% compared to the previous decade. After the ban lapsed, gun massacres rose by 183% and gun massacre deaths by 239%.” She followed that tweet with a second that said, “It’s long past time to reinstate a ban on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines before more lives are lost.” On February 19, 2018, Breitbart News reported the Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice (NIJ) report showing the federal “assault weapons” ban could not be credited with any reduction in crime. The NIJ report was authored by University of Pennsylvania professor Christopher Koper. And the Washington Times quoted Koper saying, “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.”

Exactly…  Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), a former mayor of San Francisco, is infamous for pulling bs stats out of her butt to push her anti-gun narrative.  The actual facts say something completely different.  The ’94 ban, which since has expired, did nothing to reduce gun violence.  It was all political theater and bs.  Thanks to AWR Hawkins for this little piece.     🙂

Opinion/Analysis: There was collusion – but not involving Trump

There really was a collusion plot. It really did target our election system. It absolutely sought to usurp our capacity for self-determination. It was just not the collusion you’ve been told about for nearly three years. It was not “Donald Trump’s collusion with Russia.” Here is the real collusion scheme: In 2016, the incumbent Democratic administration of President Barack Obama put the awesome powers of the United States government’s law-enforcement and intelligence apparatus in the service of the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, the Democratic Party, and the progressive Beltway establishment. This scheme had two parts: Plan A, the objective; and Plan B, a fail-safe strategy in case Plan A imploded — which all the smartest people were supremely confident would never, ever happen … which is why you could bet the ranch that it would. Plan A was to get Clinton elected president of the United States. This required exonerating her, at least ostensibly, from well-founded allegations of her felonious and politically disqualifying actions. Plan B was the insurance policy: an investigation that Donald Trump, in the highly unlikely event he was elected, would be powerless to shut down. An investigation that would simultaneously monitor and taint him. An investigation that internalized Clinton-campaign-generated opposition research, limning Trump and his campaign as complicit in Russian espionage. An investigation that would hunt for a crime under the guise of counterintelligence, build an impeachment case under the guise of hunting for a crime, and seek to make Trump not reelectable under the guise of building an impeachment case. Upon becoming President Obama’s secretary of state, Hillary Clinton improperly set up a private, non-secure system for email communications. It featured her own personal server, stored in her home and, later, maintained by a private contractor. Secretary Clinton used this private email system for all of her official State Department communications, notwithstanding that doing so (a) violated government regulations (which, as the department head, she was responsible for enforcing); (b) violated governmental record-keeping and record-production obligations imposed by federal law; and (c) made it inevitable — due to the nature of her responsibilities — that streams of classified information would flow through and be stored in the non-secure system. This lack of security meant that top-secret intelligence — some of it classified at the highest levels, some of it involving Clinton’s communications with the president of the United States and other top national-security officials — became accessible to people who were not cleared to see it. Accessible not just to those lacking security clearance but also to hostile actors, including foreign intelligence services and anti-American hackers. When asked, nearly two years after leaving office, to surrender copies of her emails (by an Obama State Department under pressure from congressional investigators and Freedom of Information Act claimants), Clinton caused tens of thousands of her emails to be destroyed. Not just deleted. Destroyed. As in: purged with a special software program (“BleachBit”) designed to shred electronic documents. The aim was to prevent their being recovered. Ever. By anyone. In all, Clinton undertook to destroy over 30,000 emails, even though some of them had been demanded by congressional subpoena. And this would not be a Clinton story if we failed to note that, in the time-honored family tradition, Hillary lied her head off about the substance of the destroyed emails: We were to believe that, in thousands upon thousands of email exchanges, one of the busiest public officials and most obsessively political creatures on the planet had lolled her days away gabbing about yoga routines, family vacations, and her daughter’s wedding. President Obama took care of undermining any prosecution for her mishandling of classified information. He had a deep interest in doing so: He had knowingly communicated with his secretary of state through the private system, and he had misled the public about it — claiming to have learned about Clinton’s private email practices from news reports, like everyone else. All of that could be neatly buried in two steps. First, invoke executive privilege (without calling it that — too Nixonian) to seal the Obama–Clinton emails from public view. Second, ensure that the Clinton-emails case would never be prosecuted: If Clinton was never accused of criminal conduct, then Obama’s role as a minor participant would not become evidence in a criminal case. In April 2016, on national television, the president made clear that he did not believe an indictment should be filed against former Secretary Clinton, who, by then, was the inevitable Democratic presidential nominee. Obama explained that, in his considered judgment, Clinton meant no harm to national security. Plus, the intelligence involved, though technically categorized as “classified,” was not really, you know, the super-secret stuff — “There’s ‘classified,’” Obama scoffed, “and then there’s classified.” It was a classic Obama straw man. The criminal provisions pertinent to Clinton’s case did not require proof of intent to harm the United States, only that she was trusted with access to intelligence and nevertheless mishandled it, either intentionally or through gross negligence. Moreover, no one was accusing Clinton of trying to damage national security. That is a different, more serious criminal offense that was not on the table. It was as if Obama were claiming that a bank robber was somehow not guilty of the bank robbery because she hadn’t murdered anyone while committing it. There was no way on God’s green earth that the Obama Justice Department was ever going to authorize a prosecution involving conduct that would embarrass the president. Nor was it ever going to indict Obama’s former secretary of state — certainly not after Obama, revered by Democrats and pundits as a first-rate lawyer, had pronounced her not guilty, had provided a legal rationale for exoneration, and had endorsed her as his successor. Wonder of wonders: The “no intent to harm the United States” rationale President Obama had glibly posited in insisting Clinton had done nothing wrong was echoed in the ensuing months by his subordinates. Justice Department officials leaked to their media friends that Clinton was unlikely to be charged because there was scant evidence of intent to harm the United States. Meanwhile, very shortly after Obama’s public statements about Clinton’s case, FBI director James Comey and his closest advisers began drafting remarks exonerating Mrs. Clinton. Over a dozen critical witnesses, including Clinton herself, had not yet been interviewed. Salient evidence had not yet been examined. No matter. With the end of the story already written, the rest was just details. When Director Comey finally announced that Clinton would not be indicted, his rationalizations were indistinguishable from Obama’s. Thus “exonerated,” the former first lady was on her way to the Oval Office — this time as president. Or so she thought — as did the Obama White House, the Justice Department, the State Department, the FBI, the intelligence agencies, every progressive activist from Boston Harbor to Silicon Valley, and every political pundit from the Beltway to the Upper West Side. Alas, there was just one problem — a problem the president and his myrmidons could not fix for Mrs. Clinton. That problem was Mrs. Clinton. As would have been manifest to less politicized eyes, she was an atrocious candidate. Clinton was the same fundamentally flawed, deeply dishonest, broadly unpopular candidate she had been in 2008, when she couldn’t convince Democrats to support her. You may recall this as the reason there was a President Barack Obama in the first place. You say, “Hey, wait a second. Donald Trump was fundamentally flawed, deeply dishonest, and broadly unpopular, too.” Maybe so, but if hammering away at an opponent’s malignance is the path to victory, shouldn’t you perhaps nominate a candidate who doesn’t mirror his defects? The only differences between the “It’s My Turn” Senator Hillary! of 2008 and the “Stronger Together” Secretary Clinton who expected a 2016 coronation was that she now had hanging around her neck the Benghazi debacle, a desultory tenure as secretary of state, a shades-of-2008 inability to convince Democrats that she was the preferable candidate (this time, not in comparison to a charismatic young progressive, but to a 75-year-old self-proclaimed socialist who had joined the Democratic party about five minutes before announcing his presidential aspirations), whispers that her health was deteriorating, and an email scandal that smacked of both national-security recklessness and rules-don’t-apply-to-me arrogance — precisely the kind of controversy that reminded Americans of how exhausting the last scandal-plagued Clinton administration had been. The Obama administration’s exoneration gambit came up snake-eyes because of Clinton herself. Democrats can con themselves (and attempt to con everyone else) into believing that her failure is due to Vladimir Putin’s perfidy or Trump’s demagoguery. In the real world, though, Clinton lost because of her epic shortcomings. That loss made it inevitable that the Obama administration’s exploitation of counterintelligence powers to monitor the opposition party’s presidential campaign would come to light. That made it imperative to promote the notion that there had been a Trump–Russia scheme worth investigating — a dark cloud of suspicion that would straitjacket and shorten the Trump presidency. The collusion narrative.

..which we now know to be a total hoax; a complete fabrication.  Thanks to attorney Andrew C. McCarthy for this outstanding piece.  Its an excerpt from his new book: “Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig and Election and Destroy a Presidency.’  So, you’ll have to pick up a copy to read the rest of this..   Excellent!!!     🙂

Todd Starnes: Anti-Trump Rep. Castro taught a lesson by Texas barbecue lovers who support president

Rep. Joaquin Castro learned a very important life lesson the other day. It turns out the gun-toting, Bible-clinging Trump supporters in San Antonio don’t take kindly to a politician who disrespects their brisket. Castro, D-Texas, recently published a list of President Trump’s top San Antonio donors. He also doxed their places of employment. “Their contributions are fueling a campaign of hate that labels Hispanic immigrants as ‘invaders’,” Castro wrote on Twitter. One of the businesses the congressman targeted for political retribution was Bill Miller Bar-B-Q, one of the most popular brisket and sweet tea joints in San Antonio. For those of you north of the Mason-Dixon line, eating brisket is something of a worship experience. I’ve heard stories from the Hill Country that some Baptist churches in those parts actually serve brisket and sweet tea for the Lord’s Supper. Castro must have imagined thousands of San Antonians converging on the barbecue joints armed with torches and pitchforks, terrorizing customers in the drive-thru and staging boycotts. He must have dreamed about literally running the pit masters out of town. But there are some rules about living in the Lone Star State. You go to church on Sunday. You don’t talk bad about somebody’s momma. And you don’t mess with the brisket. The day after Castro published that hateful screed, thousands of Texans piled into their pickup trucks and drove to the nearest Bill Miller Bar-B-Q. Social media reports flooded in showing massive drive-thru lines backing up onto busy streets. Hungry customers patiently waited in lines out the door. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott tweeted a photograph of a plate piled high with barbecue noting it was a “perfect night for @BillMillerBarBQ.” Conservatives have rallied to the restaurant’s defense, much like they did when Chick-fil-A was victimized by leftist bullies over the company’s Christian beliefs. Remember that story? In my forthcoming book, “Culture Jihad: How to Stop the Left From Killing a Nation,” I urge conservatives to stand up to the militant thugs and bullies who want to destroy this nation. And we cannot allow ourselves to be intimidated by a bunch of pajama boy liberals and their pink-hat-wearing gal pals. In the days after Castro’s attempt to dox and destroy Trump supporters, something unusual happened. Instead of being afraid, conservatives decided to rise up – and fight back. “We found that our fundraising actually has gone up since the congressman tried to out those people and shame somebody for supporting President Trump,” Lara Trump told me during an interview on “The Todd Starnes Radio Show.” She said Castro’s hate-tweet was “sick and twisted.” “People don’t like this,” Lara Trump, who is the president’s daughter-in-law and a senior adviser to his reelection campaign, told me. “This is not acceptable. When has it ever been OK to harass people and try and silence them and make an effort to stop them from contributing to a political campaign just because you disagree with it?” The Republican National Committee also reports an uptick in donations after the recent attacks on Trump donors. And it’s clear to me that Americans are sending a message to political punks who think it’s OK to bully private citizens. “This isn’t how we do things in this country,” Lara Trump said. Amen! God bless Texas and God bless barbecue.

Well said, Todd.  Congressman Castro (D-TX) probably broke the law with this stunt of his.  But, regardless, it was a punk thing to do.  He’s a shameless, self-righteous, self-serving bully…and the stunt definitely backfired on him.  So, kudos to everyone in Texas who pushed back against that punk. Todd Starnes is host of “The Todd Starnes Radio Show” and “Starnes Country” on Fox Nation. He is the author of a number of best-selling books. Follow him on Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook.

Elizabeth Warren’s Ferguson Lie

Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren yesterday tweeted: “5 years ago Michael Brown was murdered by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. Michael was unarmed yet he was shot 6 times. I stand with activists and organizers who continue the fight for justice for Michael. We must confront systemic racism and police violence head on.” This is an outright lie, one day after Warren complained of the dangers of rhetoric. Michael Brown was not murdered. Michael Brown was shot by officer Darren Wilson in an act of self-defense. This is why the grand jury declined to indict Wilson for murder or manslaughter, and it was also the conclusion of the Obama administration’s Department of Justice. “Every police officer in America should be offended by Sen. Warren’s ill-informed, inflammatory tweet today,” Jeff Roorda of the St. Louis Police Officers Association told me via email. “Holding a would-be cop killer out as some sort of victim or worse yet, a hero, does no justice to the truth or to reconciliation. Her careless words disqualify her from fitness to serve impartially as commander-in-chief.” “I was a Democratic Missouri State Representative for 8 years,” Roorda also wrote. “But, I’m sick of uninformed members of my party attacking cops. It’s just wrong.” Attempts to contact Senator Warren’s campaign by phone and email were not returned.

You have a Dem with bona fide Dem creds call out Elizabeth Warren on her brazen, self-serving, anti-cop, hypocritical lie…and her office is running the other direction when asked for comment.  Gee..  What a shocker, lol.  Not!  Don’t expect this story anywhere in the dominantly liberal mainstream media..  Everything about the incident 5 years ago in Ferguson, MO (near my hometown of St. Louis), was a lie.  Remember, “Hands up, don’t shoot?”  That was a lie.  It never happened.  According to forensics and witness testimony, it never ever happened.  And, the dominantly liberal mainstream media, the Obama Administration, Eric Holder and so on made it about racism, white cop killing unarmed black victim and on and on.  ALL of it was a lie.  For those with memory problems..  A large, young, black male (Michael Brown) went into a convenience store, bullied the clerk and stole some cigars.  At the time, the liberal media called him a “gentle giant.”  The incident at the convenience store was caught on security cameras and we ALL saw played over and over again.  In spite of that, that “gentle giant”  then walked out…and walked right down a main thoroughfare in Ferguson, a municipality in north St. Louis County.  The convenience store called 911 to report the burglary, and Officer Darren Wilson, a decorated officer, was just out on patrol saw Michael Brown waking down the middle of the street..and asked him to get out of the middle of the road.  Then, the report came through on his radio and he identified the man as the robbery suspect (“big black male carrying a box of cigars”).  So, he pulled up to Michael.  That’s when it all went south.  According to witnesses, Officer Wilson’s personal account, and MULTIPLE autopsies by multiple coroners (yeah, there were actually multiple coroners), Michael Brown, who later we find out also had marijuana in his system (remember the law-abiding “gentle giant” narrative?), attacked Officer Wilson and was MUCH bigger than the officer, and went for his sidearm.  During the struggle, Officer Wilson who had already been beat by Brown (and the pics taken of the officer after the incident showed he was beat up badly), fearing for his life, shot and killed Brown.  The end.  And according to multiple witnesses, multiple autopsies, the officer’s testimony, and forensics, the officer did everything proper and by the book.  It was pure self-defense.  In fact, had the suspect been white, that’s exactly where the story would have ended and it wouldn’t have made national news.  To be clear, race had NOTHING to do with the event, until the rabid race hustlers/oportunists like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, then Pres. Obama, then AG Eric Brown, the NAACP, the agenda-driven liberal media, and on and on made it into a race issue…which ultimately resulted in some rioting.  Elizabeth Warren, and the rest of the Dems seeking the 2020 Dem Presidential nomination for their party, are using every minute they have in front of a camera to shamelessly play some type of race card to further the narrative that President Trump is a racist and white supremacist.  Of course there is no evidence to substantiate that whatsoever.  But, it’s the lie they’re repeating over and over…  And, as evidenced here, Elizabeth Warren is even stooping so low as to referring to an incident that happened YEARS before Trump even declared his presidential aspirations.  But, of course, Trump is somehow responsible for Ferguson as well..  Typical..