Progressives keep taking black voters for granted — at their peril

By Salena Zito

Pennsylvania political operative Maurice Floyd says black voters are moderate and mostly focused on community, schools and jobs. Photo: Joseph Kaczmarek

PHILADELPHIA — Maurice Floyd is tired of liberal intellectuals who insist on speaking for all black voters.

“They want us to fit into their mold,” said the veteran political operative. They “don’t dig deep down to really find out what is really on the consciousness of African-Americans.”

Because black voters tend to overwhelmingly vote Democrat, candidates and pundits often assume they share the same views as progressives, supporting third-trimester abortions, the Green New Deal and Medicare for all, Floyd said.

“I don’t think black voters are really that progressive,” he said. “They’re pretty moderate. They care about their community. They care about their schools. They care about getting a decent paycheck.”

The most recent Pew survey of Democratic voters shows just that. Black voters characterize their values as more moderate than liberal, with 40 percent of black Democrats calling themselves moderate, 30 percent conservative and only 28 percent liberal.

It’s a stark contrast to white voters in their own party, where 55 percent of white Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters identify themselves as liberal, while 35 percent describe themselves as moderate and only 8 percent as conservative.

Joann Bell, who once served as the Pennsylvania governor’s executive director on African-American affairs, said black voters are especially more conservative when it comes to economic issues. Everyday concerns like being able to put food on the table will usually come before more global causes, such as fighting climate change

.

“Not everybody,” Bell said, “has the luxury of being progressive.”

So far, among the 21 Democratic candidates in the primary field, some have openly embraced the progressive label while others have danced around it, but only one — Joe Biden — has avoided being boxed into any kind of designation.

So it shouldn’t surprise anyone that black Democratic voters overwhelmingly back him as their candidate right now. According to a March Quinnipiac poll, Biden holds 44 percent support from black voters, giving him a double-digit advantage over his nearest competitor, Bernie Sanders.

No one is suggesting that black voters will suddenly support Donald Trump for president, but if they’re not enthusiastic about a candidate, it could depress turnout at the ballot box and help get Trump re-elected.

In 2016, according to an analysis from the Washington Post, Clinton saw at least a 10 percent decline in vote totals in most counties with a nonwhite majority nationwide — such as Philadelphia County — compared to Obama in 2012. In a fifth of these counties, Republicans actually saw a small gain in votes.

Philadelphia City Council president Darrell Clarke said it’s wrong to assume the black community will vote on identity politics rather than issues closer to home.

He points to the fact that a white candidate, Jim Kenney, beat a black candidate, Anthony Williams, in the race for mayor of Philadelphia in 2015, even though nearly 44 percent of the city’s population is black.

“I think African-Americans pretty much want what everybody else wants: access to good health care, jobs, a good education, a home and a safe community,” Clarke said.

Currently, there are three black candidates running for president in the Democratic primary. Though Clarke has not officially endorsed anyone in that race, he admits he is leaning strongly towards one candidate.

“It’s likely going to be Joe,” he said. “I haven’t made an official decision yet. But I know Joe Biden quite well.”

Malcolm Kenyatta, the first openly gay person of color elected to the Pennsylvania state legislature last year, said he is also supporting Biden.

Kenyatta said he wants to prioritize issues that impact his district over identity politics.

“People in my community are practical,” he said. “I certainly consider myself to be a progressive, but when I go home people want to know [if] I am working with my Republican colleagues to get things done. It is a constant question I get, and I think they care a lot less about whether or not folks are ‘politically pure.'”

Floyd, who has never worked for Biden, said many of the Democratic presidential candidates are running on issues that voters aren’t even thinking about, such as restoring voting rights to the Boston Marathon bomber.

“Let me put that in perspective,” he said, recalling a mayoral forum on gentrification and guns held in Philadelphia recently. “They asked the people in the room whose kids or relatives were killed by guns to stand up. I swear almost everybody in the place stood up. It was so heartbreaking.”

It’s unlikely that any of those constituents would want to restore voting rights to the person who killed their family member, said Floyd.

A candidate like Biden understands this sentiment, he added, and that’s why he’s likely backing him for president.

“I want somebody that just has some common sense,” he said. “Just some common sense.”

Salena Zito is the author of “The Great Revolt: Inside the Populist Coalition Reshaping American Politics” (Crown Forum), out now.

https://nypost.com/2019/05/11/progressives-keep-taking-black-voters-for-granted-at-their-peril/

_________________

RELATES ARTICLES

Biden falls in line

Photo: Senator Bernie Sanders (Left), Former VP Joe Biden (Right)

Joe Biden was quick to fall in line with the radical left by saying that he wants illegal immigrants who have paid NOTHING into the system get the same Medicare and Medicaid coverage as Americans who have spent their entire working lives paying into the system.

 So to sum up 2020 Democrats’ health care agenda: rip nearly 200 million people off of their current health insurance plans while making sure illegal immigrants are covered.

 WATCH: Biden Says We're Obligated To Give Healthcare To All "If They Are Documented Or Undocumented”

 Biden’s plan is entirely unfair to the average American citizen who pays approximately $40,000 in Medicare taxes by the time they are eligible to use the coverage they spent decades paying for.

 This is not a fringe issue for Democrats. The Washington Post notes that Booker, Castro, Gillibrand, Harris, Sanders, Swalwell, Warren, and Yang all want illegal immigrants to get government run healthcare. 

 And hypocritical as ever, Pete Buttigieg is all for illegal immigrants getting government-run health care BUT don’t ask him if he is offering health care to his campaign staff.

____________________

For Joe Biden on China, it's still the 1990s

By Michael Barone

Once upon a time, May 1 (May Day) was a day for working-class parades in factory towns. This year, it was a day for Joe Biden, setting off on his third presidential campaign in 32 years, to make news on the stump — not in a working-class venue but in the university town of Iowa City, now the state’s Democratic stronghold.

Biden’s claims for the presidency rest heavily on foreign policy expertise gained in eight years as vice president and 34 years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Unusually for a Democratic candidate this cycle, he chose to speak about China. “China is going to eat our lunch?" he asked rhetorically. "Come on, man. They can’t even figure out how to deal with the fact that they have this great division between the China Sea and the mountains in the west. They can’t figure out how they’re going to deal with the corruption that exists within the system. They’re not bad folks, folks, but guess what? They’re not competition for us.”

“This will not age well,” tweeted Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, in reply. He surely remembers how Barack Obama ridiculed him in the final 2012 presidential debate for bringing back the foreign policy of the 1980s by characterizing Russia as our “number one geopolitical foe.”

It turns out Romney had a point then, and he has one now. Biden’s foreign policy views on China seem to be stuck in the 1990s. Those were optimistic times, with the Cold War won and no geopolitical foe in sight, with a surging U.S. economy complete with budget surpluses. It was “the end of history,” in scholar Francis Fukuyama’s phrase, when it seemed that something like the American-style democracy, human rights, and dynamic capitalism would sweep the globe.

That included China. The mechanism to make it so was to bring China into the world trade system, a proposal supported by the Clinton administration, George W. Bush, and most congressional Republicans. In 2000, permanent normal trade relations with China passed the House, 237-197 in May and the Senate 83-15 in September. Opposition came largely from labor Democrats and from members like Reps. Chris Smith, Frank Wolf, and Nancy Pelosi concerned chiefly with China’s human rights abuses.

The widespread assumptions were that the international trade framework would lead China to respect international norms and encourage the Chinese people to demand (and the Chinese government to advance) democracy and human rights. Increased trade, it was hoped, would produce economic growth here, just as the opening trade with Japan and Mexico had seemingly done.

These assumptions weren’t crazy or irrational. Unfortunately, they turned out to be wrong. The respected bipartisan experts of 20 years ago turned out to be wrong. Armchair critics like President Trump, then dismissed as cranks, turned out to be right.

China has consistently cheated on trade rules and intellectual property rights. And while increased trade with China has indeed contributed to American economic growth, it has also cost far more American jobs than respected experts predicted.

Chinese imports as a percentage of U.S. economic output doubled within four years, MIT economist David Autor reported in 2016. “We would conservatively estimate that more than 1 million manufacturing jobs in the U.S. were directly eliminated between 2000 and 2007 as a result of China’s accelerating trade penetration in the United States,” in markets ranging from clothing to jewelry, toys to furniture, he wrote.

Hopes for democratization and human rights have also been dashed. When Congress voted on China trade, Russia had been holding free elections, and Vladimir Putin was serving his first year as president. Now his reign is scheduled to extend to the 2020s and maybe beyond. China has become ever bolder in its suppression of human rights and any demand for anything like free elections. Chinese President Xi Jinping has even discarded the term limits imposed on his predecessors.

With economic growth slowing down, China’s leaders are evidently relying on expansionist nationalism to rally popular support. They have built and fortified islands in the South China Sea to claim sovereignty over its sea lanes and have expanded their capacity to nullify U.S. weapons systems. As former Trump Pentagon aide Elbridge Colby writes in Foreign Policy, “If the United States delays implementing a new approach, it risks losing a war to China or Russia—or backing down in a crisis because it fears it would.”

The hopes for a cooperative and peaceful China have unfortunately been dashed. But for Joe Biden, it’s evidently still the 1990s. Is this the best the Democrats can do?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/for-joe-biden-on-china-its-still-the-1990s

Rap Artist Indicted for Obama 2012 Campaign Donations

By Aruna Viswanatha

Pras Michel in Los Angeles in 2015. PHOTO: FREDERIC J. BROWN/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES

Malaysian businessman Jho Low also charged alongside Pras Michel

Former Fugees rapper Pras Michel was indicted on charges of funneling millions of dollars in foreign money to then President Obama’s 2012 re-election effort, amid widening fallout of the multibillion-dollar fraud scandal at a Malaysian government fund.

The scandal has toppled Malaysia’s prime minister, threatened Goldman Sachs Group Inc.with criminal charges, and ensnared both Republican and Democratic fundraisers.

An indictment charging Mr. Michel with four counts including conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and making foreign campaign contributions was unsealed Friday.

The founding member of the Fugees hip-hop group was accused of taking money from a Malaysian businessman, who is the alleged mastermind of the fraud at Malaysia’s 1MDB fund, and using around $2 million to support Mr. Obama’s campaign.

The businessman, Jho Low, who was indicted last year on conspiracy charges, faces additional charges alongside Mr. Michel for his alleged role in the contributions. Mr. Low has denied those allegations and remains at large.

According to the indictment, Mr. Michel paid $1 million in money he received from Mr. Low to a 2012 political group that supported Mr. Obama, and an additional $865,000 to straw donors to support Mr. Obama’s campaign—people he reimbursed for their contributions.

Barry Pollack, a lawyer for Mr. Michel, said his client was innocent and expected to go to trial. “Mr. Michel is extremely disappointed that so many years after the fact the government would bring charges related to 2012 campaign contributions,” Mr. Pollack said.

A representative for Mr. Low said in a statement that Mr. Low was innocent. “The allegations against Mr. Low have no basis in fact: Mr. Low has never made any campaign contributions directly or indirectly in the U.S. and he unequivocally denies any involvement in or knowledge of the alleged activities,” the statement said.

A representative for Mr. Obama’s campaign couldn’t immediately be reached for comment. A spokeswoman for Mr. Obama previously declined to comment on the investigation into the donations.

1MDB was a state economic-development fund set up by former Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak in 2009. The U.S. Justice Department has said at least $4.5 billion was stolen from the fund between 2009 and 2014 and used to pay bribes to government officials, pad a slush fund controlled by the former prime minister and purchase hundreds of millions of dollars in luxury goods including jewelry, artwork and real estate.

Mr. Najib has pleaded not guilty to charges in Malaysia related to the scandal and he is currently on trial.

During 2012, Mr. Michel became a major donor to organizations that backed Mr. Obama’s campaign, The Wall Street Journal has previously reported. Over September and October of 2012, he donated more than $1.3 million, including $1,225,000 to a super PAC called Black Men Vote.

Mr. Michel also made other donations that year, including $40,000 to the Obama Victory Fund; $33,332.52 in total to Democratic parties in Wisconsin, Ohio, New Hampshire, Iowa, Florida and Colorado; and $2,500 to Obama for America, the official campaign vehicle for Mr. Obama, the Journal previously reported.

The Journal has reported that prosecutors have been examining whether laundered funds from Mr. Low went to a stream of consultants and lobbyists and both Democratic and Republican donors. They have been looking at circumstances surrounding a $100,000 donation in December 2017 to the Trump Victory committee, which is involved in helping re-elect President Trump in 2020.

Mr. Low sought out teams of lobbyists in part to help shut down the Justice Department’s investigation of 1MDB, one of his associates has admitted in court. The investigation has to date led to civil court actions to seize $1.7 billion of the funds allegedly misappropriated from the fund.

The associate, a former Justice Department employee, George Higginbotham, pleaded guilty in November to helping funnel tens of millions of dollars into the U.S. for Mr. Low, by helping him conceal from U.S. banks the origin and purpose of the funds. Mr. Higginbotham, who officials said had no influence over the probe, is now cooperating with it.

Earlier this week, a former Goldman Sachs managing director was extradited from Malaysia to face related charges in federal court in Brooklyn, increasing pressure on the bank, which underwrote $6.5 billion in bonds for 1MDB.

Goldman has consistently denied wrongdoing. The bank said certain individuals from the former Malaysian government and 1MDB lied to it about the proceeds from the bond sales.

In a sign of the high level of interest in the continuing 1MDB investigation by the Justice Department’s leadership, both Attorney General William Barr and the assistant attorney general overseeing the criminal division, Brian Benczkowski, received waivers to participate in the investigation and related litigation. They were both originally recused from the matter because Goldman hired their former law firm, Kirkland & Ellis, to represent it in the investigation.

It is unclear when Mr. Michel, known for performing the song “Ghetto Supastar (That Is What You Are),” first got to know Mr. Low, but the indictment says Mr. Low provided him with around $21 million in 2012.

Both men tried “to gain access to and potential influence with” a candidate identifiable as Mr. Obama, while “concealing…the true source of the money,” the indictment says.

Mr. Michel sought to have Mr. Low attend several fundraisers, including one in June 2012 for which Mr. Low traveled from Singapore to Miami on his private jet. He was denied admission shortly before the event began, the indictment says, but Mr. Michel brought Mr. Low’s father to another fundraiser, in which the two men had their picture taken with Mr. Obama, the document says.

—Bradley Hope contributed to this article.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/former-rap-artist-indicted-for-obama-2012-campaign-donations-11557522077

Congress’ contempt stunt against Attorney General Barr

By Andrew McCarthy | FOX News

• House Democrats hold Barr in contempt, Trump asserts executive privilege over Mueller report
• Reaction and analysis from former deputy assistant attorney general John Yoo and former independent counsel Sol Wisenberg.

When Congress uses its contempt power, there are basically three avenues it can pursue for purposes of enforcement. In the case of the House Judiciary Committee’s party-line vote to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt – for purportedly failing to produce a report he has actually produced – Democrats, who control the House, will use the route that is most political and, thus, least credible: the unilateral congressional procedure.

The committee will refer its finding for a vote by the full chamber. The stunt here is so nakedly partisan that the House won’t even try to get support from the Senate. In theory, the House could try to take enforcement action on contempt. Congress even has a jail cell in the bowels of the Capitol … though it hasn’t been used in many, many years, and it certainly is not going to be used against a cabinet officer of the executive branch. (I’m thinking the U.S. marshals would not take kindly to the House sergeant-at-arms showing up at Main Justice with a congressional arrest warrant for the attorney general).

On the other extreme, the House could theoretically avail itself of the second avenue: It could seek the help of the executive branch – specifically, the Justice Department – to pursue criminal contempt charges against the attorney general (i.e., it could ask the attorney general to prosecute the attorney general).

Stop snickering … I did say “theoretically!"

The third avenue would be to turn to the judiciary for a court citation of contempt. Democrats will not try this because it would be humiliating.

It is commonplace for us to speak of our three “co-equal” branches of government. Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler invokes this trite phrase often. But it is misleading. The Framers made Congress the first among not-really-equals. If you have any doubt about that, just have a peek at your pocket Constitution and look for the Justice Department. You won’t find it in there. The Justice Department only exists because Congress created it. Congress writes the laws that delineate its powers. Congress funds it.

That is to say, the Article I branch does not need the Article III branch to help it do its work and enforce its demands.

Plus, as a practical matter, it’s not like the judiciary has its own police force. (Can you imagine the Ninth Circuit with its own police force?!) A court needs the executive branch to enforce its orders; and while the attorney general has done nothing wrong here, the Justice Department is not going to take action against the attorney general in any event. Courts do not like to look weak: The majesty of the judiciary flows from the perception that its directives must be followed, so judges tend to stay out of disputes between the political branches, which might well ignore court orders – and have ways of retaliating against the judiciary that private litigants lack.

But let’s pretend that the House was not too embarrassed by the patent partisanship of its contempt vote; let’s pretend lawmakers went to court.

The first thing a judge would point out is that what Congress is demanding that Barr do is illegal – namely, disclose grand jury material to Congress. In Wednesday’s circus of a hearing, Chairman Nadler pointed out that there was a time when federal prosecutors would have joined with Congress to seek a court order permitting disclosure. Yes … but what Nadler conveniently neglected to mention was that this was before last month, when the D.C. Circuit federal appeals court – whose jurisprudence controls the dispute between Congress and the attorney general – decided McKeever v. Barr.

That case holds that a court has no authority to order disclosure unless it is pursuant to an exception to grand-jury secrecy explicitly spelled out in Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (which governs grand jury matters). In the old days that Nadler was talking about, there was a theory in the law that a court has residual “supervisory” powers over the grand jury that empowered judges to order disclosure outside Rule 6(e). McKeever rejects that theory.

District judges in Washington are bound to follow McKeever. So a court could not order disclosure. Then there is the other embarrassing point a judge would make. Rule 6(e) is Congress' own law. Meaning Congress has the power to amend it. Any judge would, therefore, have to ask House Democrats, “While you were doing all this ranting and raving and holding the attorney general in contempt, have any of you fine lawmakers proposed a two-line amendment to Rule 6(e) that would authorize disclosure to Congress in special counsel investigations?”

Of course, the answer is no. That is because Nadler & Co. do not really want the grand jury material. They want to try to make Barr’s refusal to disclose it look like Watergate.

Congress is not going to court. And it is not going to seek help from the executive branch. It will keep the contempt gambit in its own playpen and hope people won’t notice that it’s a cynical game.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/andrew-mccarthy-congress-contempt-barr-democrats-watergate

The Gang of Five and the Pseudo Impeachment of President Donald J. Trump

By Robert Heller | Columnist for Dr. Rich Swier.Com

The Gang of five.

Five powerful Congressional Chairmen and Chairwomen who control the Democratic Caucus, (3) from California ,(1) from New York and (1) from Maryland all from Democrat ‘safe’ Districts who received a total of approximately one million votes will decide whether to impeach and try to remove President Trump from office, a duly elected President that received approximately sixty three million votes.

The following are the votes counts for these five Congressmen and Congresswomen:

Pelosi 275,000 votes

Cummings 202,000 votes

Shiff 196,000 votes

Waters 152,000 votes

Nadler 192,000 vote

President Trump’s 63,000,000 voters could be disenfranchised by five powerful Democratic Congressmen and Congresswomen.

Even if they are unable to convict the President they could bring the wheels of government to a halt. Their threats and spurious investigations have to a great extent already done this.

In 2018 Republican and Democratic voters gave the Democrats control of the House of Representatives believing that a Democrat controlled House would address America’s real issues. They were sent there to resolve issues that affect every man, woman and child in America.

The Tyranny of the Gang of Five

The gang of five consists of the following four House Chairmen and Women and the Speaker who come from ‘safe Democratic seats’: Pelosi, Cummings, Shiff, Nadler and Waters. 

These five people literally control the Democratic caucus and thus control the total agenda of Congress. Instead of doing the business of the voters they are proceeding with a Pseudo Impeachment because they have no evidence of any ‘high crime or misdemeanor’ by Trump. For these five it is a matter of power and control — the voters business be damned.

They are like five angry pit-bulls who can’t give up the bone. 

The tyranny is that the Gang of Five together got about 1 million votes out of a total Presidential vote of approximately 123 million votes (less than 1%) and they have the power and audacity to conduct a Pseudo Impeachment or possibly a real Impeachment in the future without regard for the voters or the country. In drafting our Constitution our forefathers never contemplated that five ‘professional’ politicians with less than (1%) of the vote could stymie the will of all voters. But that is what is happening.

This is no joking matter.

The issue of Trump ‘collusion’ with Russia and then “obstruction of justice’ were to be resolved by the Robert Mueller Special Counsel investigation. 

No collusion and no obstruction was found. 

Instead of moving on the Democrats continue to rehash a closed investigation and are continuing with a Pseudo Impeachment against President Trump and now a Contempt Order against Attorney General Bar. 

In the case of AG Barr they have found him in contempt of Congress for failing to make public a limited amount of redactions, which he is not permitted to release to the public by law.

Nevertheless at an interview Speaker Pelosi said to interviewer Costa…

COSTA: “How far can you go on that front, Speaker Pelosi? Could you hold the Secretary of Treasury Steven Mnuchin in contempt? Some Democrats have even raised the prospect of arresting the Treasury secretary if he does not comply with congressional demands?”

PELOSI: “Well, let me just say that we — (Applause) — we do have a jail down in the basement of the Capitol. (Laughter) But if we were arresting all of the people in the administration — (Laughter) — we would have overcrowded jail situation, and I’m not for that. But I think again, getting to the committee, Richie Neal, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, he has a path — again all of this is so low and precedent-based to do the right thing as we go forward. And there are several options. One of them is to go directly to court.”

COSTA: “So it’s probably going to be settled in court?”

PELOSI: “We will see what the chairman announces because that’s the way we do it.”

Read what the Wall Street Journal says: The Pseudo-Impeachment

Democrats hold show trials rather than vote to oust the President.

House Democrats are escalating their campaign against the Trump Administration with complaints that its resistance to Congressional requests for documents is a threat to democracy. It’s more accurate to say that Democrats are performing what amounts to a pseudo-impeachment so they don’t have to undertake a real one.

Democrats are agonizing over impeachment because while they’re itching to do it, special counsel Robert Mueller’s report blew up their Russian collusion hopes. 

He also took no position on obstruction of justice while reporting a highly critical “analysis” of President Trump’s actions. Democrats now find themselves caught between a left-wing base that says they’ll abdicate their duty if they don’t impeach and Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s cold-blooded calculation that it could cost their majority in 2020.

What to do? Democrats have decided to act out a pseudo-impeachment that claims Mr. Trump and his Administration are committing offenses against the Constitution without daring to open a formal impeachment inquiry. The split-level goal is to appease the left while sparing the swing-district Democrats who delivered the 2018 majority from ever having to vote on articles of impeachment.

https://drrichswier.com/2019/05/08/the-pseudo-impeachment-the-gang-of-five/

___________________

RELATED ARTICLES:

Democrats Talk Impeachment as They Vote to Hold Attorney General in Contempt

House Democrats Show Their Contempt for Constitution, Rule of Law

The Injustice of the Left’s Fury Against Barr

Mueller report: Donald Trump collusion conspiracy theories are now exposed. Will they end?

By Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Opinion columnist | USA TODAY

After two years of mass hysteria afflicting a huge portion of our political class, the cognitive dissonance after the Mueller report is painful.

“Donald Trump broke the brains of a lot of people.” That’s leftist journalist Glenn Greenwald, talking about the way conspiracy theories have occupied the media despite the absence of any actual evidence.

For over two years, the line among mainstream media, from The New York Times to Rachel Maddow, has been that President Donald Trump is Vladimir Putin’s stooge. It was suggested that the Russians “hacked” the election by penetrating voting machines. When that was exploded, we were told that they “hacked” the election by arranging for Wikileaks to release (truthful) emails about how the Democratic Party rigged its primaries in favor of Hillary Clinton to ensure that Bernie Sanders wouldn’t get the nomination. At some point, the narrative shifted to vaguer references to “collusion.”

It was all bogus. As Greenwald notes, Mueller’s report didn’t just reject the Trump-Russia conspiracy theories, it obliterated them. Not only was no one in Trump’s campaign charged with conspiring with the Russians, no American anywhere was so charged, nor did Mueller find evidence along those lines to support criminal charges.

That should put the whole collusion narrative to bed, but of course it hasn’t. After two years of what can fairly be described as mass hysteria afflicting a huge portion of our political class, the cognitive dissonance is painful. It would be amusing to watch, if the “broken brains” weren’t so widespread among the people who are supposed to be the sober managers and reporters of our society. It’s like a doomsday cult whose predicted apocalypse fails to appear on schedule: They just announce that they made a mathematical mistake, and doomsday will actually come next year. Then they ask for more donations. The trouble is, this time it’s a cult that’s running a significant part of our nation.

Trump is not subordinate to Russia

Even post-Mueller, the hysteria continues. Ralph Peters, on CNN, referred to President Trump as "slavishly subordinate” to Vladimir Putin. But that’s crazy. Trump has sanctioned Russia for its actions in Ukraine, Syria, and Iran, under his command the United States military killed hundreds of Russian mercenaries in Syria, has been sending weapons to Ukraine to resist Russian invasion, and most importantly has promoted U.S. oil production, crushing Russia’s main source of money and influence.

As Walter Russell Mead wrote in 2017:

If Trump were the Manchurian candidate that people keep wanting to believe that he is, here are some of the things he’d be doing:

► Limiting fracking as much as he possibly could

► Blocking oil and gas pipelines

► Opening negotiations for major nuclear arms reductions

► Cutting U.S. military spending

► Trying to tamp down tensions with Russia’s ally Iran

That Trump is planning to do precisely the opposite of these things may or may not be good policy for the United States, but anybody who thinks this is a Russia appeasement policy has been drinking way too much joy juice.

Obama actually did all of these things, and none of the liberal media now up in arms about Trump ever called Obama a Russian puppet; instead, they preferred to see a brave, farsighted and courageous statesman.

Back when Mitt Romney warned of Russian influence in 2012, Democrats — including the New York Times’ Maggie Haberman — were quick to mock him. She’s suddenly repented of her Romney mocking, now that Romney, instead of being a Republican candidate for president, is a Trump critic. Broken brain, indeed.

One of the great legacies of the Trump Administration is the extent to which it has revealed that huge swathes of our national establishment, in government, the media, and elsewhere, are both hopelessly partisan and frighteningly incompetent. Buckle up, because all the evidence is that the establishment hasn’t learned its lesson yet.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds, a University of Tennessee law professor and the author of "The New School: How the Information Age Will Save American Education from Itself," is a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/04/22/mueller-report-donald-trump-collusion-conspiracy-theories-continue-establishment-column/3535024002/

__________________

RELATED ARTICLE

Mueller cleared Trump — now get over it

By Mitch McConnell | New York Post

It’s now been more than six weeks since special counsel Bob Mueller, the former FBI director, concluded his investigation into Russia’s interference in our 2016 election and delivered his findings to the Justice Department. It’s been two weeks since Attorney General William Barr made the 450-page report public. This investigation went on for two years. It’s finally over. Many Americans were waiting to see how their elected officials would respond.

With an exhaustive investigation complete, would the country finally unify to confront the real challenges before us? Would we finally be able to move on from partisan paralysis and breathless conspiracy theorizing? Or would we remain consumed by unhinged partisanship and keep dividing ourselves to the point that Putin and his agents need only stand on the sidelines and watch as their job is done for them?

Regrettably, the answer is pretty obvious. So that’s what I want to discuss this morning. Russia’s interference in American elections. The work of the special counsel and the attorney general. And how we can finally end this “Groundhog Day” spectacle, stop endlessly relitigating a 2¹/₂-year-old election result, and move forward for the American people.

Now, it bears remembering what this investigation was actually supposed to be about: Russian interference in 2016. For many of the president’s opponents, it quickly morphed into something else. A last hope that maybe they’d never have to come to terms with the American people’s choice of a president.

In some corners, special counsel Mueller came to be regarded as a kind of a secular saint, destined to rescue the country from the inconvenient truth that the American people actually elected Donald Trump. For two years, many of the president’s opponents seemed to be hoping the worst conspiracy theories were actually true. They seemed to be hoping for a national crisis for the sake of their own politics.

Now look, I will say it was at least heartening to see many of my Democratic colleagues and the media abruptly awaken to the dangers of Russian aggression. An awakening to the dangers of Russian aggression. Remember, not long ago, Democrats mocked Republicans like John McCain and Mitt Romney for warning about the dangers posed by Putin’s Russia. Remember President Obama’s quip in 2012 when then-Governor Romney emphasized his concerns with Russia? Here’s what President Obama said when Mitt Romney emphasized his concerns with Russia back in 2012. Direct quote: “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back.” That was President Obama in 2012.

Well, I think many of us now see that President Obama’s approach to Russia could have used some more of the 1980s in it. More Ronald Reagan and less Jimmy Carter. We’d have been better off if the Obama administration hadn’t swept Putin’s invasion and occupation of Georgia under the rug or looked away as Russia forced out western NGOs and cracked down on civil society.

If President Obama hadn’t let Assad trample his “red line” on Syria or embraced Putin’s fake deal on chemical weapons. If the Obama administration had responded firmly to Putin’s invasion and occupation of Ukraine in 2014; to the assassination of Boris Nemtsov in 2015; and to Russia’s intervention in Syria.

Maybe stronger leadership would have left the Kremlin less emboldened. Maybe tampering with our democracy wouldn’t have seemed so very tempting. Instead, the previous administration sent the Kremlin the signal they could get away with almost anything. So is it surprising that we got the brazen interference detailed in special counsel Mueller’s report? A concerted effort to divide Americans through social- media campaigns. Hacking into the e-mail accounts and networks of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party.

Thanks to the investigation, we know more about these tactics. Thanks to the investigation, 13 Russian nationals, three Russian companies and 12 more Russian intelligence officers have been indicted. These are the people who really did seek to undermine our democracy.

Yet, curiously, many of our Democratic colleagues and most of the news media don’t really seem to care about that. New insight into defending America? Russian nationals indicted? Doesn’t seem to interest my colleagues across the aisle. No interest. Just like there’s been little interest in the steps this administration has taken to make Russia pay for its interference and strengthen America’s hand.

Election interference was just one part in Russia’s strategy to undercut the United States. And this administration has taken the problem head-on. We have a new, coherent national security strategy and national defense strategy that take this threat seriously.

We have new sanctions. We’ve provided Georgia and Ukraine weapons to better defend themselves — capabilities the previous administration denied our partners — now listen to this — out of fear of provoking Russia. We’ve worked against pipeline projects like Nord Stream 2 that would further expand Putin’s influence. We’re strengthening and reforming NATO so the alliance can present a united front. We proved Russia’s noncompliance with the INF [Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty] and walked away from a treaty that Moscow had made into a sham.

And the Trump administration has, over Russian objections, twice enforced President Obama’s red line in Syria after Assad’s use of chemical weapons.

With respect to election security: Congress appropriated hundreds of millions of dollars to state governments to shore up their systems. The administration increased information-sharing from the Department of Homeland Security in cooperation with the states. And according to press reports, the Department of Defense has expanded its capabilities and authorities to thwart cyber threats to our democracy.

No longer will we just hope Moscow respects our sovereignty; we will defend it. These are just a few examples. There’s already evidence they’re having an effect.

We just had the 2018 midterm elections. Thanks to this administration’s leadership, all 50 states and more than 1,400 local election jurisdictions focused on election security like never before. DHS provided resources to localities for better cybersecurity, and private social-media companies monitored their own platforms for foreign interference. Thanks to efforts across the federal government, in 2018, we were ready.

That clearly is progress. The Mueller report will help us. So will the upcoming report from the Select Committee on Intelligence. These threats and challenges are real. Our responsibility to strengthen America is serious. And it requires serious work.

But seriousness is not what we’ve seen from the Democratic Party in recent days. What we’ve seen is a meltdown. An inability to accept the bottom-line conclusion on Russian interference from the special counsel’s report: “The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.”

That’s the conclusion. Two years of exhaustive investigation, and nothing to establish the fanciful conspiracy theory that Democratic politicians and TV talking heads had treated like a foregone conclusion. They told everyone there’d been a conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign.

Yet on this central question, the special counsel’s finding is clear: Case closed. Case closed.

This ought to be good news for everyone. But my Democratic colleagues seem to be publicly working through the five stages of grief.

The first stage is denial. Remember what happened when the attorney general released his preliminary letter describing the special counsel’s bottom-line legal conclusions? Denial. Immediately, totally baseless speculation that perhaps Attorney General Barr hadn’t quoted the report properly.

But then, comes stage two: anger. Welcome to Washington, DC, in recent days. The Democrats are angry. Angry that the facts disappointed them. Angry that our legal system will not magically undo the 2016 election for them.

And they’ve opted to channel all their partisan anger onto the attorney general. They seem to be angrier at Bill Barr for doing his job than they are at Vladimir Putin. This is a distinguished public servant whose career stretches back almost 50 years. He’s widely respected. Nobody claims he has any prior personal allegiance to this president.

And why are they angry? Did the attorney general fire the special counsel or force him to wind down prematurely? No. Did he sit on the Mueller report and keep it secret? No, he quickly reported out its bottom-line legal conclusions and then released as much as possible for the world to see. Did he use redactions to mislead the public? No. Working with the special counsel’s team, he released as much as possible within standard safeguards.

So it’s hard to see the source of this anger. Maybe my Democratic colleagues are thinking of some strange new kind of coverup — where you take the entire thing you’re supposedly covering up and post it on the Internet. The claims get more and more utterly absurd. Baseless accusations of perjury. Laughable threats of impeachment.

Look, we all know what’s going on here. This is the whole angry barrage that Democrats had prepared to unleash on President Trump. Except the facts let them down. And so the left has swung all those cannons around and fired them at the attorney general. Not for any legitimate reason. Just because he’s a convenient target.

So look, there’s this “outrage industrial complex” that spans from Capitol press conferences to cable news. They are grieving — grieving — that the national crisis they spent two years wishing for did not materialize. But for the rest of the country, this is good news. Bad news for the “outrage industrial complex,” but good news for the country.

So, now they’re slandering a distinguished public servant because the real world has disappointed them. Instead of taking a deep breath and coming back to reality, our colleagues across the aisle want to shoot the messenger and keep the perpetual outrage machine right on going. Even undermining the institution of the attorney general itself in the process.

Remember, Russia set out to sow discord. To create chaos in American politics and undermine confidence in our democracy. But, on that front, given the left’s total fixation on delegitimizing the president Americans chose and shooting any messenger who tells them inconvenient truths, I’m afraid the Russians hardly need to lift a finger. Well, the last stage of grief is acceptance. For the country’s sake, I hope my Democratic friends get there soon. There are serious issues the American people need us to tackle. There is more progress for middle-class families that we need to deliver.

For two years, the Democratic Party held out hope that the legal system would undo their loss in 2016. They refused to make peace with the American people’s choice. But the American people elected this president. They did. The American people voted for change. The American people sent us here to deliver results for their families. That’s what Republicans have been doing for the past two years and counting. It’s what Republicans will continue to do. And whenever our Democratic friends can regain their composure and come back to reality, we look forward to their help.

https://nypost.com/2019/05/07/mitch-mcconnell-mueller-cleared-trump-now-get-over-it/

Trump presents 'true legend' Tiger Woods with Presidential Medal of Freedom

By Samuel Chamberlain | Fox News

President Trump presented Tiger Woods with the Presidential Medal of Freedom in the White House Rose Garden Monday, calling the champion golfer "a global symbol of American excellence, devotion and drive."

"Tiger, we are inspired by everything you've become and attained. The job you've done is incredible," Trump said to Woods. "Your spectacular achievements on the golf course, your triumph over physical adversity and your relentless will to win, win, win; these qualities embody the American spirit of pushing boundaries, defying limits and always striving for greatness."

Trump, an avid golfer who played with Woods at the president's golf club in Florida this past February, also referred to Woods as "a true legend, an extraordinary athlete who has transformed golf and achieved new levels of dominance."

"He's also a great person. He's a great guy," Trump added.

During the ceremony, the president recounted highlights of Woods' career in detail... Both men were clad in blue suits and red ties, matching Woods' traditional Sunday apparel on the golf course.

At one point, Trump recognized Woods' mother, girlfriend, children and caddie, all of whom were in attendance, and paid tribute to Woods' late father, Earl, calling him "a very special guy also."

"He was tough, Tiger, wasn't he?" Trump asked Tiger about Earl Woods.

"Not as tough as her," Woods cracked in response, pointing out his mother, Kultida.

Woods is the fourth golfer to receive the Medal of Freedom. Then-President George W. Bush presented the honor to Arnold Palmer and Jack Nicklaus in 2004 and 2005, respectively. Then-President Barack Obama gave the Medal of Freedom to Charlie Sifford, the first African-American to join the PGA Tour, in 2014. In his remarks Monday, Woods mentioned that he had named his 10-year-old son Charlie after Sifford, whom he referred to as "like the grandpa I never had."

"This has been an unbelievable experience and ... everyone here has seen and been with me for them, some of you for my entire life, and some of you for more than half my life," Woods said. "You've seen the good and the bad, the highs and the lows and I would not be in this position without your help."

Trump announced that Woods would receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom last month after Woods won the Masters Tournament. It was the 43-year-old Woods' first victory at Augusta National since 2005 and his first major title since 2008.

"I tried to hang in there and I tried to come back and play the great game of golf again," Woods said. "I've been lucky enough to have the opportunity to do it again, and ... the amazing Masters experience that I just had a few weeks ago is probably the highlight of what I've accomplished so far in my life on the golf course."

Woods and Trump are longstanding business associates. Golfers at Trump's club in Doral, Fla., can stay at the Tiger Woods Villa. At a ribbon cutting ceremony in 2014, Woods lavished praise on the future presidential candidate, calling changes he made to the club "phenomenal."

In Dubai, Woods designed an 18-hole course to be managed by The Trump Organization.

The Trump Organization has "repeatedly demonstrated their ability to successfully manage unique, high-end courses and golf clubs, and this is no exception," Woods said in a 2018 interview in the company's in-house magazine.

Trump has used Woods' cachet to attract fans to his properties for decades.

Trump got Woods to show up at his Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City, N.J., a day after the golfer's first Masters victory in 1997. Two thousand fans showed up as Woods walked down a 320-foot red carpet, some of them storming steel barricades to get a closer look.

....

The Medal of Freedom ceremony was the second sports-related event to be held at the White House Monday. Earlier in the day, Trump presented the Commander in Chief's Trophy to the Army football team to mark its wins over Air Force and Navy this past season.

Fox News' Ryan Gaydos and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

https://www.foxnews.com/sports/trump-tiger-woods-presidential-medal-of-freedom