RUTHFULLY YOURS

The fatalistic flip-out over Trump’s plan to exit from the Paris Climate Accord is the latest proof that the leaders of the political Left have learned absolutely nothing since November 8. Unlike Trump, who said during his Rose Garden announcement of the planned withdrawal that he was “elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris,” these woke folks continue to overlook huge swaths of the American public as they try to win a global popularity contest, redistribute our wealth, and lecture us about how ignorant, uncaring, and unaware we are.

The drumbeat from tone-deaf celebrities, tech titans, bureaucrats, and political hacks began earlier this week on social media when it became clear Trump would finally act to undo one of Barack Obama’s legacy policies. On May 28, California billionaire and climate catastrophist Tom Steyer, who donated $87 million to Democratic candidates in 2016 alone, tweeted out his dire assessment of Trump’s expected move. Steyer said Trump would be “committing a traitorous act of war against the American people.” Within moments of Trump’s speech, Steyer said the administration “has just committed assault and battery on the future of the American people. There can be no excuse for this willful crime. Yes, by pulling out of the Paris Agreement, Donald Trump is betraying the moral, political, and economic leadership position America has achieved over centuries at the cost of American lives.”

Steyer was joined in agony by fellow Golden State tycoons including Elon Musk, co-founder of Tesla, among other tech enterprises, who had threatened to stop working on two of Trump’s advisory councils if the president pulled out of the Paris agreement. Musk, whose holdings have benefited from nearly $5 billion in government support, tweeted May 31, “Don’t know which way Paris will go, but I’ve done all I can to advise directly to POTUS, through others in the WH & via councils, that we remain.” After Trump’s announcement, Musk tweeted, “Am departing presidential councils. Climate change is real. Leaving Paris is not good for America or the world.” Or for Musk’s bank account, considering how much more in likely government handouts the Paris deal would’ve meant for him. But Musk probably should turn his attention elsewhere: His solar-energy company, SolarCity Corp., is reportedly under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission for failing to disclose how many customers have canceled their solar-energy system orders.

Tim Cook, CEO of Apple and a major fundraiser for Hillary Clinton, reportedly called the White House this week to urge Trump to stay in the pact. The man who heads an empire built off energy generated by fossil fuels is one of those Silicon Valley sillies who wrongly thinks we can — and need to — live off 100 percent renewables within the next few decades.

Celebrities who still haven’t learned that their endorsement of anyone or anything usually yields the opposite of the intended effect also weighed in on Trump’s move. Hollywood’s most prolific climate celeb — the bed-hopping, jet-setting, yacht-cruising Leo DiCaprio — said he hoped Trump would make the “moral” decision to stay in Paris, then tweeted shortly after the president’s announcement that “today, our planet suffered.” Unhinged showgirl Bette Midler tweeted that Trump’s exit gave “BigOil a windfall” and that “there has never in US history been such a destructive megalomaniac in the WH. Thank you to US press and other numbskulls who put him there.”

Mark Ruffalo, known more for his environmental activism than for his marginal acting, tweeted that if Trump left Paris, the president would “have the death of whole nations on his hands. People will be looking to the USA for retribution for what they loose [sic].” Actress Alyssa Milano, who is approximately 0 for 432 on helping political candidates win, tweeted: “Oh my God, you really are a monster. @realDonaldTrump.” But the topper could go to George Takei of Star Trek fame, who tweeted: “Trump is having us pull out of the Paris Climate Accord. Too bad someone didn’t tell his father that he shoulda pulled out too.”

The thing to remember is that there’s a big difference between perceiving “pressure” and believing that you have witnessed the obstruction of an FBI investigation, a federal felony.

Take this to the bank: Over the next week, before the much-anticipated Senate testimony of former FBI director James Comey, the media-Democratic complex is going to spare no effort to convince you that the words “pressure” and “obstruction” are synonyms – you know, like the words “collusion” and “crime.”

They’re not.

It may very well be that former FBI director James Comey is prepared to testify, consistent with a leaked report of a memorandum written to himself, that he felt President Trump pressured him to drop the FBI’s investigation of Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national-security adviser.

Even if this were true, it would not mean Comey believed the president had committed felony obstruction. No one grasps this better than the former FBI director himself.

On that score, I’ve been surprised, since the story of Comey’s memo-to-self broke, to have been asked about the purported “contradiction” between the memo and Senate testimony the then-director gave in early May.

According to the memo (which has not been made public and from which only a selectively mined snippet has been reported), on February 14, President Trump told Comey, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go.” Based on this, CNN, relying on “a source close to the issue” (hmmm), claims that Comey is prepared to testify that he felt “pressured” to pull the plug on the investigation.

Compare this with his May 3 testimony. Answering questions put by Senator Mazie Hirono (D., Hawaii), the then-director averred that he had never been directed by superiors to halt an FBI investigation.

Contrasting the two statements, Comey’s more fervid detractors accuse him of perjury. Should Comey testify next week that Trump pressured him in February, they reckon that either a) this claim or b) his May testimony that he’d never been “told to stop something for a political reason” would have to be false testimony.

It is a specious contention. First, Senator Hirono did not ask Comey about any direction given to him by the president. Her questions were about orders from the FBI director’s Justice Department superiors. (The FBI is part of DOJ, and the director is subordinate to the attorney general.)

More important, let’s assume that a question about whether he’d ever gotten a shut-down order from DOJ obliged Comey to include in his response any shut-down order he’d ever received from a president. (This assumption runs counter to perjury law, but let’s pretend.) The bottom line would still be that an order simply is not the same thing as pressure. Asserting that you have never been ordered to do something does not imply a representation that you have never been pressured to do that something.

The former head of Washington D.C.’s Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital, who was removed following a scathing report about the hospital’s lack of sterile surgical equipment, has been given a high-ranking post at the VA’s D.C. headquarters, according to NBC4.

“REMOVED as head of Wash DC VA Med Center after scathing audit, Brian Hawkins has landed high-ranking job at VA headquarters, per NBC4ITeam,” tweeted investigative reporter Scott MacFarlane.

Hawkins was demoted in April following an inspector general report which found that patients at the D.C. VA were at risk of infection due to a lack of sanitary equipment.

In one terrifying incident, a patient was prepared for vascular surgery and already put under anesthesia when the surgeon discovered he lacked the necessary equipment for the operation! The inspector general report also found discolored surgical instruments unsuitable for use, and reported that medical staff had to borrow supplies, including bloodlines and surgical pieces, from nearby centers.

The inspector general report listed 18 different sterile storage containers which were contaminated by dirty conditions. Investigators found expired medical equipment on site, and some of this expired equipment was even used in a June 2016 patient procedure.

In April, when the report came out, the VA announced it would take disciplinary action if appropriate. “VA’s top priority is to ensure that no patient has been harmed. If appropriate, additional disciplinary actions will be taken in accordance with the law,” the VA said in a statement. Here is a photo of Hawkins’ resignation speech.

Hawkins had worked as director of the D.C. VA medical center since 2011.

“It is nearly impossible to remove bad VA employees who engage in negligence or misconduct, even to the extent that Mr. Hawkins did,” declared Concerned Veterans for America (CVA) Policy Director Dan Caldwell in a statement. “A government employee who puts veterans in imminent danger obviously should not remain on the VA payroll, but Secretary Shulkin’s hands are tied.”

CONTINUE AT SITE

For some time, we’ve been watching the hysterical attacks on President Trump. The Democrats are calling for an “independent investigation.” Some are even calling for “impeachment” even though no one has identified a crime.

Well, don’t be surprised if the Democrats start calling for a truce and then back off completely. Why? Because the Obama investigation is about to be investigated, as James Rosen reported:

FOX News has confirmed that the FBI, the CIA, and the National Security Agency were all served today with subpoenas issued by the House Intelligence Committee. Sources say each of these subpoenas referenced unmasking and each named as figures of interest three senior Obama era officials.

Former White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice was identified by multiple news agencies last month as someone who requested the names of Trump associates whose names had appeared in coded form in classified intelligence reports be identifed for her — or ‘unmasked.’ Rice at the time denied wrongdoing and told us today through a spokesperson that she is unaware of any subpoenas ‘directed at her.’

Former CIA Director John Brennan is also named in the subpoenas. In testimony last week, Brennan decried the leaks of classified information that had bedeviled the Trump administration, and which some believe is linked to the unmasking activity. Brennan declined our request for comment.

Most noteworthy was the committee’s naming of Samantha Power, the former UN ambassador has not previously surfaced in the unmasking controversy. A Pulitzer prize-winning historian, Power served in Barack Obama’s Senate office before joining his administration.

House investigators told Fox News they are now devoting more scrutiny to Power, and they have come to see her role in the unmasking as ‘larger than previously known.’ Allegedly eclipsing the others named.

Oops, as someone said. This investigation could expose that the Obama administration was spying on U.S. citizens or unmasking them.

So don’t be surprised if the Democrats call for a truce or settlement to stop all of the investigations. The party lost its senses after Trump was elected. They could not accept the results, or the loss of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. They’ve been trying so hard to delegitimize the Trump presidency that they’ve opened the door that they didn’t want to open — an investigation of the Obama presidency.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/06/chastising_simon_and_schuster_.html

If you are disturbed about the gruesome photo shoot of Kathy Griffin depicting President Trumps’ severed head, then you will be equally disgusted at the comment of New York Times bestselling author children’s books Ken Jennings. Jennings tweeted the following:

Barron Trump saw a very long necktie on a heap of expired deli meat in a dumpster. He thought it was his dad & his little heart is breaking.

The left has no shame and that this former Jeopardy winner and author of children’s books should write this vile message should not go unnoticed. Jennings writes for Simon & Schuster. Thanks to a comment at the Gateway Pundit site, you can call the publisher at 1-800-223-2336, choose option 4 and let your voice be heard. I just did.

It is time to fight back.

Maybe it will be remembered as the weekend when, at long last, the media-Democrat complex overplayed its hand on the “Collusion with Russia” narrative. They are still having so much fun with the new “Jared back-channel to the Kremlin” angle, they appear not to realize it destroys their collusion yarn.

Their giddiness is understandable. The new story is irresistible: President Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, in a December 2016 Trump Tower meeting with the ubiquitous Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, discussed setting up a communications “back-channel” between the incoming administration and the Kremlin.

There is now the inevitable Kush-said-Kis-said over exactly who proposed the back-channel. For Trump’s critics, the meeting itself, as well as the contemplated (but apparently never consummated) line-of-communications, are a twofer against Trump: a) the amateurish attempt to insulate the transition’s discussions with an important foreign power from monitoring by the Obama intelligence agencies, and, b) the naïve sense that the Russians would keep their discussions discrete rather than humiliate Trump at the first opportunity.

As if that were not enough, more cause for media-Democrat excitement: Reports that Kushner’s outreach to Kislyak resulted in the former’s being passed along to a shady Russian banker—a close Putin crony with roots in Russia’s intelligence services.

For anti-Trumpers of all ideological stripes, the story is a much needed gap-filler. For all the hype in D.C. and the Democrats’ coastal enclaves, the collusion story is flagging in most of the country. It lacks what a scandal needs to sustain itself: evidence. There is none: not when it comes to anything concrete that the Trump campaign may have done to aid and abet the Russian “interference in the election” project―a project that, though probably real, is more a matter of educated intelligence conjecture than slam-dunk courtroom proof.

For anti-Trumpers of all ideological stripes, the story is a much needed gap-filler. For all the hype in D.C. and the Democrats’ coastal enclaves, the collusion story is flagging in most of the country. It lacks what a scandal needs to sustain itself: evidence.

The latest episode in the Trump-Kislyak follies may divert attention from this omission for a few days. But sooner or later the new angle must be recognized for what it logically is: the death knell of the collusion narrative. Once that dawns on the commentariat, maybe we can finally get around the real collusion story of the 2016 campaign: The enlistment of the U.S. government’s law-enforcement and security services in the political campaign to elect Hillary Clinton.

Let’s start with the ongoing collusion farce. National-security conservatives harbored pre-existing reservations about Donald Trump that were exacerbated by his Putin-friendly rhetoric on the campaign trail. It is no secret that many conservatives who supported Trump in November―or at least voted against Hillary Clinton―preferred other GOP candidates. All that said, we’ve found the collusion story risible for two reasons.

First, to repeat, there is no there there. The “there” we have is a campaign by politicized intelligence operatives to leak classified information selectively, in a manner that is maximally damaging to the new administration. Democrats and their media friends have delighted in this shameful game, in which the press frets over imaginary crimes while colluding in the actual felony disclosure of intelligence. Such is their zeal, though, that we can rest assured we’d already have been told about any real evidence of Trump collusion in the Russian 2016 campaign project. Instead, after multiple investigations, a highly touted (and thinly sourced) report by three intel agencies (FBI, CIA and NSA), and a torrent of leaks, they’ve come up with exactly nothing.

Second, the eight-year Obama record is one of steadfastly denying that Russia posed a profound threat, and of appeasing the Kremlin at every turn. This even included a hot-mic moment when Obama explicitly committed to accommodate Putin―to America’s detriment―on missile defense.

It could scarcely be more manifest that the collusion narrative is strictly political. Were that not the case, there would be no bigger scandal than the Clinton Foundation dealings with Russia that lined Bill and Hillary Clinton’s pockets while the Russians walked away with major American uranium reserves.

The truth of the matter is that Obama, the Democrats, and their media megaphone had no interest in Russian aggression and duplicity until they needed a scapegoat to blame for their dreadful nominee’s dreadful campaign.

The truth of the matter is that Obama, the Democrats, and their media megaphone had no interest in Russian aggression and duplicity until they needed a scapegoat to blame for their dreadful nominee’s dreadful campaign. Until the fall and The Fall, the Left’s default mode was to ridicule Republicans and conservatives who took Putin’s provocations seriously―like Obama’s juvenile jab about the 1980s wanting its foreign policy back when, at a 2012 debate, Mitt Romney correctly cited Russia as a major geo-political menace.

Speaking from the Rose Garden at the White House Thursday afternoon, President Donald Trump officially pulled the United States out of the Paris Climate Agreement.

“In order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord,” Trump said to applause, adding the U.S. is open to renegotiating another deal. “We will begin negotiations to re-enter either the Paris Accord, or an entirely new agreement.”

“I will work to ensure America remains the world’s leader on environmental issues, but under a framework that is fair,” he continued. “The agreement is a massive redistribution of United States wealth to other countries.”

Bolstering his America first message, the President cited the agreement’s burden on American jobs and energy as reason for leaving.

“No responsible leader can put the workers and the people of their country at this debilitating and tremendous disadvantage,” Trump said. “Withdrawing is in economic interest and won’t matter much to the climate.”

“By his action today, President Trump is choosing to put the forgotten men and women of America first,” Vice President Mike Pence said.

The President tried to assure critics his administration will work to protect the environment while also protecting the economy.

“We will be environmentally friendly, but we’re not going to put our businesses out of work,” Trump said.

Before the announcement, the White House told reporters the deal was unfair to American industry and workers while giving China an economic advantage.They also argued the agreement was pushed through by a desperate Obama administration without proper negotiation.

Pulling out of the agreement fulfills President Trump’s campaign promise to do so.

“I was elected by voters of Pittsburgh, not Paris. I promised I would exit or renegotiate any deal which fails to serve US interests,” Trump said.

Liberal ideology conceives of “safe spaces” in the context of alleged white patriarchy, but there was a real need for a “safe space” in Britain’s Manchester Arena on May 22, when 22-year-old terrorist Salman Abedi detonated his nail- and screw-filled suicide bomb after a concert by teen idol Ariana Grande. What was the “progressive” answer to yet another instance of Islamic terrorism in the West? Feckless calls for resisting hate, pledges of renewed diversity, and little else.

A rethinking of immigration policies is off the table. Nothing that an Islamic terrorist can do will ever shake the left-wing commitment to open borders—not mass sexual assaults, not the deliberate slaughter of gays, and not, as in Manchester last week, the killing of young girls. The real threat that radical Islam poses to feminism and gay rights must be disregarded in order to transform the West by Third World immigration. Defenders of the open-borders status quo inevitably claim that if a terrorist is a second-generation immigrant, like Abedi, immigration policy has nothing to do with his attack. (Abedi’s parents emigrated to Britain from Libya; his immediate family in Manchester lived in the world’s largest Libyan enclave outside Africa itself.) Media Matters ridiculed a comment about the Manchester bombing by Fox News host Ainsley Earhardt with the following headline: fox news host suggests ‘open borders’ are to blame for manchester attack carried out by british native.

Earhardt had asked how to prevent “what’s happening in Europe, with all these open borders, they’re not vetting, they’re opening their borders to families like this, and this is how they’re paid back in return.” Pace Media Matters, a second-generation Muslim immigrant with a zeal for suicide bombing is as much of an immigration issue as a first-generation immigrant with a terrorist bent. The fact that second-generation immigrants are not assimilating into Western culture makes immigration policy more, not less, of a pressing matter. It is absurd to suggest that Abedi picked up his terrorist leanings from reading William Shakespeare and William Wordsworth, rather than from the ideology of radical Islam that has been imported into Britain by mass immigration.

The Washington Post, too, editorialized that “defenders of vulnerable immigrants and asylum seekers, who in Britain as elsewhere in the West remain the targets of populist demagogues, could take some comfort from the fact that the assault apparently did not originate with those communities.” Well, where did the assault originate from—Buckingham Palace?

Since liberals and progressives will not allow a rethinking of open borders policy, perhaps they would support improved intelligence capacity so as to detect terror attacks in the planning stages? Nope. The Left still decries the modest expansions of surveillance power under the 2001 Patriot Act as the work of totalitarianism. Former New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly sought to gather publicly available information about dense Muslim neighborhoods in New York in order to monitor potential radicalization; his discontinued initiative is still denounced as anti-Muslim oppression. Internet companies protect encrypted communications from government access, to the applause of civil libertarians and the mainstream media. The National Security Agency’s mass data analysis, done by unconscious computer algorithms, is still being challenged in court.

What about using ordinary police powers to try to hinder terrorism? Islamic terrorists in Europe have moonlighted as crooks, engaging in drug dealing, robberies, vandalism, and theft. The U.S. should have zero tolerance for any criminal activity committed by aliens: break the criminal law and you’re out of here. Deporting alien criminals is both an anti-crime and an anti-terrorism strategy. Yet mayors and police chiefs in sanctuary jurisdictions across the country continue to release alien criminals back into the community from jail in defiance of requests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement to hold the criminals briefly for removal proceedings. The New York Police Department defied every ICE detainer request it received in the first four months of 2017, instead releasing 179 alien criminals back into the streets, according to the New York Post.

Comedian Kathy Griffin’s gruesome, Islamic State-inspired, photoshoot with the fake severed head of President Trump is an unsettling reminder of both the depravity of the Left and the lengths to which some radical activists will go to make a political statement in our information-rich age.

The Left, American history shows, is inherently violent in both word and deed, but conservatives, despite a fondness they share with Democrats for military metaphors in politics, are rarely moved to commit actual violence. Conservatives’ natural disinclination towards political violence is why Hillary Clinton authorized Robert Creamer and Scott Foval to pay leftist agitators, the homeless, and the mentally ill, to cause melees at Trump rallies as part of the DNC’s officially authorized “conflict engagement” program. After all, the leftist lie that Trump and his supporters were deplorable thugs wouldn’t have gained traction without news reports of Trump fans getting physical with Trump haters.

Plenty of left-leaning, anti-Trump comedians have subordinated their comedy routines to their politics. Almost always they end up being not funny. People who expect comedy from their comedians don’t like being tricked into taking in political sermons.

The tedious sanctimony junkie John Fugelsang is one example of a comedian whose political rants have supplanted actual jokes. Liberal comedians bombed at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner this year (the preachy Hasan Minhaj) and last year (Larry Wilmore). Stephen Colbert and John Oliver aren’t funny when they’re trashing Trump. Bill Maher is seldom funny nowadays. Samantha Bee has never been funny. Jon Stewart, who has described himself as a socialist, used to be funny sometimes but the laughs faded as he became increasingly immersed in political commentary. His replacement on Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show,” affirmative action hire Trevor Noah, is almost never funny, especially when blathering on about politics.

And there was nothing courageous about Griffin’s photo. She wasn’t speaking truth to power. There was no controversy or political issue addressed. She was being grotesque for the sake of being grotesque. She was pandering to her elitist left-wing friends in Hollywood who enjoy comparing the Republican Party to the Taliban.

Greg Gutfeld opined on “The Five” Wednesday that Griffin did this to try to move from the D-list up to the B-list, a reference to her reality TV show, “Kathy Griffin: My Life on the D-List.”

Griffin is attempting to “take the express train to political relevance,” even though “she’s about as funny as syphilis,” he said.

President Trump agrees. “Kathy Griffin should be ashamed of herself,” Trump tweeted yesterday. “My children, especially my 11 year old son, Barron, are having a hard time with this. Sick!”

The first lady also weighed in.

“As a mother, a wife, and a human being, that photo is very disturbing,” said Melania Trump in a statement. “When you consider some of the atrocities happening in the world today, a photo opportunity like this is simply wrong and makes you wonder about the mental health of the person who did it.”

Initially, Griffin tried to justify participating in the photoshoot. She tweeted that she was “merely mocking the Mocker in Chief.” She later deleted the tweet.

Then as the firestorm she created spread, Griffin posted an apology video online. In it, she said:

Hey everybody, it’s me, Kathy Griffin. I sincerely apologize. I’m just now seeing the reaction of these images. I’m a comic. I crossed the line. I move the line and then I cross it. I went way too far. The image is too disturbing. I understand how it offends people. It wasn’t funny, I get it. I’ve made a lot of mistakes in my career. I will continue. I asked your forgiveness. Taking down the image. Going to ask the photographer to take down the image. And I beg for your forgiveness. I went too far. I made a mistake and I was wrong.