Earth Day Climate Hysterics Ignore Failed Predictions of the Past; Insist AGAIN We're All Going to Die Without a Carbon Tax!

Nearly every year for 30 years they've said we have only ten years to save the planet.  I guess these alarmists aren't very good at math. 

Earth Day in the U.S. came and went this week with barely a whimper.  However, in the United Kingdom climate hysterics have spent the week tying up traffic, thus driving up carbon emissions, and doing other insane things. One woman even glued her breasts to the sidewalk to stop traffic.  What some lefties will do for attention!

In the U.S. the obligatory scaremongering "news" stories suddenly leapt to the front of Google newsfeeds. I noticed this one on the top of my phone's feed:

We're losing the war on climate change
Analysis by John D. Sutter, CNN

...[T]he scale of the outrage in no way matches the magnitude of this disaster, which, like WWII, threatens to cripple or even obliterate human life on the planet as we know it.

We've known the truth about climate change -- that people are burning fossil fuels and warming the atmosphere, with potentially catastrophic consequences -- for decades now. James Hansen testified about the dangers of global warming when he was an NASA scientist in 1988. The New York Times headline: "Global Warming Has Begun, Expert Tells Senate."

Since then, the eco-woke among us have created more than enough deadlines to try to force change. In 1990, as George Marshall wrote in his book "Don't Even Think About It," the magazine Ecologist published a book called "5,000 Days to Save the Planet." About 5,000 days later, the Institute for Public Policy Research declared that there were "Ten Years to Save the Planet." In 2008, he wrote, the New Economics Foundation said it was "100 Months to Save the World."

ALL of those dire deadlines to save the planet have come and gone and we are still here. All that scaremongering that human life would be "obliterated" was just so much hot air. The "eco woke" have been wrong every single time. But that doesn't stop them from continuing the scare campaign.

The Chicken Little "sky is falling" routine is nothing new for climate hysterics. There's a history there that goes back to 1864:

155 years later and we're still here.

CNN's Sutter ignored Al Gore's declaration of a "planetary emergency" in 2006 in which he repeated again that we had ten years before we reached a “point of no return.” Media dutifully repeated Gore's claim and ran stories about the end of life as we now it. Fake news before Trump coined the term.

Over and over, the same pattern, act now or doom is certain. These people haven't been right once. What they can't seem to accept is that the fundamental claim that manmade CO2 is destroying the planet has been proven false by 30 years of the most intense scientific observations. The theory is wrong and no amount of carbon tax will have any significant impact on climate change. Warming, such as it is over the last 40 years, shows nothing like the trend these scaremongers insist is just days away.

Even this 0.0 point is an arbitrary construct.  We only have 40 years of data for earth's climate that is billions of years in the making. 

Meanwhile, Al Gore, who had a net worth of less than $2 million as a public official is now worth over $200 million.  He's wrong about EVERYTHING and laughing all the way to the bank at YOUR expense!

Attorney General Barr's News Conference on Mueller Report: Trump Innocent Until PROVEN Guilty!

I wonder if Dems still trying to convict Trump would like that same standard of justice applied to them?

So, another giant nothingburger for Trump haters with the release of the Mueller report.  In it's entirety, minus redactions for classified or grad jury testimony we confirm what we already knew: no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia and no case to answer for obstructing justice for a crime that never occurred.

That hasn't stopped the Democrat smear machine. The same bunch who have spent the last two years lying and manufacturing FAKE NEWS about Trump seized on every sentence with an effort to spin the story.  Do they think the American people are that stupid?  Well, their voters might be.

Here is the news conference with Attorney General Barr.  Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, whom Democrats previously defended, stands behind:

BARR: Good Morning. Thank you all for being here today.

On March 22, 2019, Special Counsel Robert Mueller concluded his investigation of matters related to Russian attempts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and submitted his confidential report to me pursuant to Department of Justice regulations.

As I said during my Senate confirmation hearing and since, I am committed to ensuring the greatest possible degree of transparency concerning the Special Counsel’s investigation, consistent with the law.

At 11:00 this morning, I will transmit copies of a public version of the Special Counsel’s report to the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. The Department of Justice will also make the report available to the American public by posting it on the Department’s website after it has been delivered to Congress.

I would like to offer a few comments today on the report.

But before I do that, I want to thank Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein for joining me here today and for his assistance and counsel throughout this process. Rod has served the Department of Justice for many years with dedication and distinction, and it has been a great privilege and pleasure to work with him since my confirmation. He had well-deserved plans to step back from public service that I interrupted by asking him to help in my transition. Rod has been an invaluable partner, and I am grateful that he was willing to help me and has been able to see the Special Counsel’s investigation to its conclusion. Thank you, Rod.

I would also like to thank Special Counsel Mueller for his service and the thoroughness of his investigation, particularly his work exposing the nature of Russia’s attempts to interfere in our electoral process.

As you know, one of the primary purposes of the Special Counsel’s investigation was to determine whether members of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, or any individuals associated with that campaign, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election. Volume I of the Special Counsel’s report describes the results of that investigation. As you will see, the Special Counsel’s report states that his “investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

I am sure that all Americans share my concerns about the efforts of the Russian government to interfere in our presidential election. As the Special Counsel’s report makes clear, the Russian government sought to interfere in our election. But thanks to the Special Counsel’s thorough investigation, we now know that the Russian operatives who perpetrated these schemes did not have the cooperation of President Trump or the Trump campaign – or the knowing assistance of any other Americans for that matter. That is something that all Americans can and should be grateful to have confirmed.

The Special Counsel’s report outlines two main efforts by the Russian government to influence the 2016 election:

First, the report details efforts by the Internet Research Agency, a Russian company with close ties to the Russian government, to sow social discord among American voters through disinformation and social media operations. Following a thorough investigation of this disinformation campaign, the Special Counsel brought charges in federal court against several Russian nationals and entities for their respective roles in this scheme. Those charges remain pending, and the individual defendants remain at large.

But the Special Counsel found no evidence that any Americans – including anyone associated with the Trump campaign – conspired or coordinated with the Russian government or the IRA in carrying out this illegal scheme. Indeed, as the report states, “[t]he investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons knowingly or intentionally coordinated with the IRA’s interference operation.” Put another way, the Special Counsel found no “collusion” by any Americans in the IRA’s illegal activity.

Second, the report details efforts by Russian military officials associated with the GRU to hack into computers and steal documents and emails from individuals affiliated with the Democratic Party and the presidential campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton for the purpose of eventually publicizing those emails. Obtaining such unauthorized access into computers is a federal crime. Following a thorough investigation of these hacking operations, the Special Counsel brought charges in federal court against several Russian military officers for their respective roles in these illegal hacking activities. Those charges are still pending and the defendants remain at large.

But again, the Special Counsel’s report did not find any evidence that members of the Trump campaign or anyone associated with the campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its hacking operations. In other words, there was no evidence of Trump campaign “collusion” with the Russian government’s hacking.

The Special Counsel’s investigation also examined Russian efforts to publish stolen emails and documents on the internet. The Special Counsel found that, after the GRU disseminated some of the stolen materials through its own controlled entities, DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0, the GRU transferred some of the stolen materials to Wikileaks for publication. Wikileaks then made a series of document dumps. The Special Counsel also investigated whether any member or affiliate of the Trump campaign encouraged or otherwise played a role in these dissemination efforts. Under applicable law, publication of these types of materials would not be criminal unless the publisher also participated in the underlying hacking conspiracy. Here too, the Special Counsel’s report did not find that any person associated with the Trump campaign illegally participated in the dissemination of the materials.

Finally, the Special Counsel investigated a number of “links” or “contacts” between Trump Campaign officials and individuals connected with the Russian government during the 2016 presidential campaign. After reviewing those contacts, the Special Counsel did not find any conspiracy to violate U.S. law involving Russia-linked persons and any persons associated with the Trump campaign.

So that is the bottom line. After nearly two years of investigation, thousands of subpoenas, and hundreds of warrants and witness interviews, the Special Counsel confirmed that the Russian government sponsored efforts to illegally interfere with the 2016 presidential election but did not find that the Trump campaign or other Americans colluded in those schemes.

After finding no underlying collusion with Russia, the Special Counsel’s report goes on to consider whether certain actions of the President could amount to obstruction of the Special Counsel’s investigation. As I addressed in my March 24th letter, the Special Counsel did not make a traditional prosecutorial judgment regarding this allegation. Instead, the report recounts ten episodes involving the President and discusses potential legal theories for connecting these actions to elements of an obstruction offense.

After carefully reviewing the facts and legal theories outlined in the report, and in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel and other Department lawyers, the Deputy Attorney General and I concluded that the evidence developed by the Special Counsel is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.

Although the Deputy Attorney General and I disagreed with some of the Special Counsel’s legal theories and felt that some of the episodes examined did not amount to obstruction as a matter of law, we did not rely solely on that in making our decision. Instead, we accepted the Special Counsel’s legal framework for purposes of our analysis and evaluated the evidence as presented by the Special Counsel in reaching our conclusion.

In assessing the President’s actions discussed in the report, it is important to bear in mind the context. President Trump faced an unprecedented situation. As he entered into office, and sought to perform his responsibilities as President, federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking office, and the conduct of some of his associates. At the same time, there was relentless speculation in the news media about the President’s personal culpability. Yet, as he said from the beginning, there was in fact no collusion. And as the Special Counsel’s report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the President was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks. Nonetheless, the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims. And at the same time, the President took no act that in fact deprived the Special Counsel of the documents and witnesses necessary to complete his investigation. Apart from whether the acts were obstructive, this evidence of non-corrupt motives weighs heavily against any allegation that the President had a corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation.

Now, before I take questions, I want to address a few aspects of the process for producing the public report that I am releasing today. As I said several times, the report contains limited redactions relating to four categories of information. To ensure as much transparency as possible, these redactions have been clearly labelled and color-coded so that readers can tell which redactions correspond to which categories.

As you will see, most of the redactions were compelled by the need to prevent harm to ongoing matters and to comply with court orders prohibiting the public disclosure of information bearing upon ongoing investigations and criminal cases, such as the IRA case and the Roger Stone case.

These redactions were applied by Department of Justice attorneys working closely together with attorneys from the Special Counsel’s Office, as well as with the intelligence community, and prosecutors who are handling ongoing cases. The redactions are their work product.

Consistent with long-standing Executive Branch practice, the decision whether to assert Executive privilege over any portion of the report rested with the President of the United States. Because the White House voluntarily cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation, significant portions of the report contain material over which the President could have asserted privilege. And he would have been well within his rights to do so. Following my March 29th letter, the Office of the White House Counsel requested the opportunity to review the redacted version of the report in order to advise the President on the potential invocation of privilege, which is consistent with long-standing practice. Following that review, the President confirmed that, in the interests of transparency and full disclosure to the American people, he would not assert privilege over the Special Counsel’s report. Accordingly, the public report I am releasing today contains redactions only for the four categories that I previously outlined, and no material has been redacted based on executive privilege.

In addition, earlier this week, the President’s personal counsel requested and were given the opportunity to read a final version of the redacted report before it was publicly released. That request was consistent with the practice followed under the Ethics in Government Act, which permitted individuals named in a report prepared by an Independent Counsel the opportunity to read the report before publication. The President’s personal lawyers were not permitted to make, and did not request, any redactions.

In addition to making the redacted report public, we are also committed to working with Congress to accommodate their legitimate oversight interests with respect to the Special Counsel’s investigation. We have been consulting with Chairman Graham and Chairman Nadler throughout this process, and we will continue to do so.

Given the limited nature of the redactions, I believe that the publicly released report will allow every American to understand the results of the Special Counsel’s investigation. Nevertheless, in an effort to accommodate congressional requests, we will make available to a bipartisan group of leaders from several Congressional committees a version of the report with all redactions removed except those relating to grand-jury information. Thus, these members of Congress will be able to see all of the redacted material for themselves – with the limited exception of that which, by law, cannot be shared.

I believe that this accommodation, together with my upcoming testimony before the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, will satisfy any need Congress has for information regarding the Special Counsel’s investigation.

Once again, I would like to thank you all for being here today. I now have a few minutes for questions.

Mueller investigation by the numbers
Employed 19 lawyers

Worked with team of 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and other professional staff

Issued more than 2,800 subpoenas

Executed nearly 500 search warrants

Obtained more than 230 orders for communication records

Issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers

Made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence

Interviewed approximately 500 witnesses

Mueller Report by on Scribd

Miracle at Notre Dame As Damage Not as Total as Feared. Many Artworks Survive

God heard the prayers of the world!

Young Parisians knelt in prayer and sang hymns as the fire raged at Notre Dame on Monday evening. The video is especially touching.

Monday reports from French officials suggested the possibility that the entire cathedral might be destroyed as the fire seemed to rage out of control.  Here's the problem:

The roof of the cathedral was held up with 800 year old beams. As you see from the photo above a fire would rip through the entire area quickly. This is the attic of Notre Dame. Directly below is the ceiling.

The central spire, also made of wood and covered in lead like the roof, collapsed and fell through the ceiling into the center of the cathedral. Fortunately, the central altar with it's priceless works of art was largely saved as were other areas protected by the central columns.

Despite nearby catastrophic damage it appears that some of the larger stained glass rose windows survived. Below is a photo of the north window.

Reports are the the large south window, an incredible work of art installed in 1260 also survived.

Now that the fire is out the urgent need is to assess integrity of the remaining structure

All this is an Easter miracle considering the ferocity of the blaze:

CBS "The Good Fight" Tweets "Assasinate Trump" Image

I wonder why we haven't heard from the Pelosi Censor about this REAL incitement to violence?

Read the top of this list:

How many times now has liberal media sent out such violent images?  I've lost track!

Pelosi Demands Trump Delete Tweet About Rep. Omar and 9/11 Yet Refuses to Hold Fellow Dems to Same Standard

Dems say far worse about Trump and incite violence yet Pelosi gives them a wink and calls it free speech!

When Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) openly called for Democrats to physically harass Trump Administration officials and their supporters Nancy Pelosi called the incitement "unacceptable." Never once did she demand Rep. Waters take back her words and apologize. When Rep. Ilhan Omar made repeated remarks that were widely viewed as anti-Semitic Pelosi came to her defense saying:

PELOSI: [Rep. Omar] has a different experience in the use of words, doesn’t understand that some of them are fraught with meaning, that she didn’t realize.

A House resolution condemning Omar's remarks was discarded and replaced with one that condemned all hate speech and never mentioned Omar.

Another prime example of Pelosi's twisted logic came when radical freshman Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) called President Trump a "motherfucker" at a gathering of left wing activists Pelosi responded "I'm not in the censorship business."

After Rep. Omar's latest blunder, speaking before a group of radical Muslims where she described the September 11th attacks as "some people did something." President Trump used that quote in a Twitter video with footage from that awful day. Watch the entire video and see what you think.

WE WILL NEVER FORGET! pic.twitter.com/VxrGFRFeJM

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 12, 2019

The video concluded "September 11, 2001 we remember" and Trump added "we will never forget."

But Speaker Pelosi who says she is not in the "censorship business" is demanding that Trump "take down" the "dangerous video" as it might incite violence towards Rep. Omar. Does Pelosi not remember 9/11? Has she forgotten just as she has apparently forgotten all the threats made to Trump supporters? She calls it a "dangerous video." How exactly?

.@realDonaldTrump’s dangerous video must be taken down. I have spoken with the Sergeant-at-Arms to ensure that Capitol Police are conducting a security assessment to safeguard Rep. @Ilhan Omar, her family & her staff. They will continue to monitor & address the threats she faces. pic.twitter.com/Grb9c8S18d

— Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) April 14, 2019

So, it's "dangerous" now to remember the 9/11 attacks? We know whose side Ilhan Omar is on. She laughs about Al Queda and Hezbollah. Whose side is Pelosi on?

Whose side are YOU on?

More Dem Hypocrisy: They Say They Support Illegals But They Object When Trump Offers to Send Them to Their States

Dems want open borders but just not for their states and cities!

Due to the fact that Democrats are unwilling to change our very dangerous immigration laws, we are indeed, as reported, giving strong considerations to placing Illegal Immigrants in Sanctuary Cities only....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 12, 2019

No, it didn't make Dems happy. They rushed to the nearest microphone to call Trump a racist for offering to share the bounty of illegals that Dems demand with sanctuary cities. There is no room at border facilities for the waves of MILLIONS of illegals who have crossed the border in the last few years. They have to go somewhere. But Dems don't want them coming to THEIR cities!

The same Democrats who refuse to agree to effective border security measures called Trump's plan "reprehensible" and "asinine." It's abundantly clear that Dems who welcome illegals with open arms to the country don't want them living in their towns and cities!

Trump should proceed with this plan with all speed. A tent city of illegals outside Speaker Pelosi's walled mansion in San Francisco would hardly be noticed with all the human feces and drug needles already on the sidewalk!

Cher says NO to more illegals in LA

I Understand Helping struggling Immigrants,but MY CITY (Los Angeles) ISNT TAKING CARE OF ITS OWN.WHAT ABOUT THE 50,000+🇺🇸Citizens WHO LIVE ON THE STREETS.PPL WHO LIVE BELOW POVERTY LINE,& HUNGRY? If My State Can’t Take Care of Its Own(Many Are VETS)How Can it Take Care Of More

— Cher (@cher) April 14, 2019

Rep. Omar: 9/11 "Some People Did Something" Shows How Pro-Islam Left Trivializes Terrorism

Coming from the Jew hating Somali refugee who married her brother and used campaign funds illegally to pay for the divorce!

The New York Post's cover for Thursday calls out Ilhan Omar for trivializing the 9/11 terrorist attacks as "some people did something" pic.twitter.com/xToghXSGw5

— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) April 11, 2019

What a shame Trump's ban on Somali refugees wasn't in place when this America hater was trying to get in!

Attorney General Barr Senate Testimony: Obama Administration DID Spy on Trump Campaign

Barr is taking steps to determine whether surveillance was legal!

Remember all the left wing media laughter when Trump revealed that he had been spied on?  The usual suspects said this was evidence Trump was crazy and supported the idea that he should be removed from office.  There were direct and repeated denials that any spying had taken place. (1,2)

But as Winston Churchill famously said: "a lie gets half way around the world before the truth has a chance to put its pants on."  Finally, the truth has its pants on.  There was spying on the Trump campaign.

Attorney General William Barr testified Wednesday before a Senate committee. Watch this:

"I am going to be reviewing both the genesis and the conduct of intelligence activities directed at the Trump campaign during 2016… I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal… I think spying did occur.” -Attorney General Bill Barrpic.twitter.com/9aaUS1dhVt

— GOP (@GOP) April 10, 2019

ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: As I said in my confirmation hearing, I am going to be reviewing both the genesis and the conduct of intelligence activities directed at the Trump campaign during 2016. And a lot of this has already been investigated, and a substantial portion of it has been investigated and is being investigated by the office of the Inspector General, but one of the things I want to do is pull everything together from the various investigations that have gone on, including on the Hill and in the [Justice] Department, and see if there are any remaining questions to be addressed.

SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN: And can you share with us why you feel a need to do that?

BARR: Well, you know, for the same reason we're worried about foreign influence in elections, we want to make sure that during elections -- I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal. It's a big deal.

The generation I grew up in, which is the Vietnam War period, people were all concerned about spying on anti-war people and so forth by the government, and there were a lot of rules put in place to make sure that there's an adequate basis before our law enforcement agencies get involved in political surveillance. I'm not suggesting that those rules were violated but I think it's important to look at that. and I'm not talking about the FBI necessarily, but intelligence agencies more broadly.

SHAHEEN: So you're not suggesting, though, that spying occurred?

BARR: Well, I guess -- I think spying did occur, yes. I think spying did occur.

SHAHEEN: Well --

BARR: The question was whether it was adequately predicated. And I'm not suggesting it wasn't adequately predicated. I need to explore that. I think it's my obligation. Congress is usually very concerned about intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies staying in their proper lane. I want to make sure that happened. We have a lot of rules about that.

I want to say that I've said I'm reviewing this. I haven't set up a team yet, but I have in mind having some colleagues help me pull all this information together and letting me know whether there are some areas that should be looked at. I also want to make clear. I also want to make clear, this is not launching an investigation of the FBI. Frankly, to the extent there were any issues at the FBI, I do not view it as a problem that's endemic to the FBI.

I think there was probably a failure among a group of leaders there, at the upper echelon. So I don't like to hear attacks about the FBI because I think the FBI is an outstanding organization and I think Chris Wray is a great partner for me. I'm very pleased he's there as the director. If it becomes necessary to look over some former officials' activities, I expect I'll be relying heavily on Chris and work closely with him in looking at that information. But that's what I'm doing. I feel I have an obligation to make sure that government power is not abused. I think that's one of the principal roles of the attorney general.

We've known for months now that the FBI bent over backwards to exonerate Hillary Clinton in her classified email scandal. Newly released documents show discussion of the "the Hillary coverup operation" that assured Hillary would not be charged even though the violations of law in the handling of classified information were clear. Anyone else would have gone to jail.

Was McCarthyite "Russia, Russia, Russia" tactic part of cover-up?

Now that we are about to launch a REAL investigation into what happened here, we might revisit the left wing media's role in trying to protect Hillary and lie about Trump. Now that the Mueller report exonerated Trump in regard to any Trump-Russia collusion, people may want to know why CNN and MSNBC constantly beat that drum despite the fact there was NO EVIDENCE.  CNN mentioned Russia 16,000 times in the past two years. Rachel Maddow at MSNBC might have exceeded that amount all on her own. Look at a recap from just ONE of her shows:


For over two years Democrats and their media allies have engaged in a McCarthyite style campaign to point the false finger of Russian accusations at Trump. Did they do so to protect Hillary and to cover-up the role played by Obama Administration officials in spying on Trump? Will we finally find out what fired FBI lawyer Lisa Page meant when she said Obama "wants to know everything we are doing?

In White House Meeting w/ Egyptian President Al-Sisi Trump Repairs Previous Administration Damage to Relations. "Quantum Leap" Forward

Obama preferred radical Muslim Brotherhood that sought to turn Egypt into another Iran!

President Donald Trump welcomes visiting Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi to the White House in Washington, Tuesday, April 9, 2019.

The Obama policy of promoting the Muslim Brotherhood as leaders in Egypt could have ended very badly for Egypt, the Middle East and the United States. Obama bent over backward to drive Egypt's long time President Hosni Mubarak from power and in it's place welcomed the radical Muslim Brotherhood. But the people of Egypt knew better and soon drove the Brotherhood out.  Obama never forgave them, nor President Al-Sisi who took over.

Relations between Egypt and the U.S. hit the ultimate low point after that with Obama refusing to invite Al-Sisi to the White House. A very public slap in the face which Egyptians did not forget.

President Trump has now fully repaired the damage that was done to the relationship with a key Middle East ally. Tuesday's White House visit is just icing on the cake. This visit marks the second visit by Al-Sisi to the White House and the sixth between the two leaders.

You couldn't find a better endorsement of Trump's policy of engagement with Egypt than President Al-Sisi's own words at Tuesday's meeting:

PRESIDENT AL SISI: (As interpreted.) Thank you, Mr. President. Allow me to express my thanks for your kind invitation and for providing me this opportunity to meet and talk about making a quantum leap in the strategic relationship between Egypt and the United States.

Let me emphasize, Mr. President, that the relations have not been better over the years of our bilateral relationship, and that is why I’m extending, Mr. President, to you our thanks, appreciation, and greetings for (inaudible).

All the credit goes to you, Mr. President. Thank you very much for your support on all fronts. This is what we’re seeking to promote our bilateral relations in various fields: political, economic, military, cultural, and others.

Aren't you glad there's an adult in the White House?

Obama Administration Border Chief: Current Border Crisis "Worst We Have Ever Experienced"

Yet open borders Dems continue to deny there is a crisis!

Testimony before a Senate panel this week by Mark Morgan, Obama Administration Border Chief. In a separate interview he described how the border is "wide open."

Morgan's statement blames Democrats for politicizing the issue and ignoring the facts:

The historical data, current factual-based information, and intelligence clearly outlines the very real border threat and humanitarian crisis we face at our southwest border. The changing trends in illegal crossings and exploitation of our laws have overwhelmed our resources and personnel.

We are experiencing a crisis to the magnitude never experienced in modern times. The solution to this extremely complex crisis, cannot be a partisan issue. Simply put – continued inaction through uncompromising positions will only serve to exacerbate the threat. There is an acute need for legislative action.

As the immigration debate has continued, we have seen the political discourse in this country steadily decline. The divisive rhetoric, often directed at the men and women of law enforcement, may serve some political purpose, but its demoralizing for the personnel being attacked. I’ve seen the use of social media to mischaracterize again and again, the actions of law enforcement personnel to further a political talking point. This type of misinformed and generalized rhetoric is beneath any Congressional member and only serves to further divide the country on the immigration debate. The overwhelming majority of border security personnel do what they do out of a sense of duty – to the nation, it’s laws and citizens. They don’t get fulfillment from their government paycheck but rather from a sense of being a part of something greater than one’s self. I’m respectfully requesting as we continue this debate, we all pause, and remember – words matter. They have greater meaning and impact when the words come from our elected members of Congress – with this power comes immense responsibility.
...
The increases and demographic changes in illegal crossings are direct responses to our broken legal frame work being exploited by the cartels and migrants. The loopholes in our asylum laws; nonsensical judicial precedent; overwhelmed immigration processes; and lack of detention space, have helped drive what has devolved essentially into an open border policy. Central American families are incentivized and rewarded to come and illegally enter our border because they know
DHS must release them within 20 days by law and they will be allowed to remain in the U.S. indefinitely while awaiting immigration court proceedings. It’s simple – they step one foot on American soil, say the magic words under “credible fear” and within a few days they’re allowed into cities all across the U.S. What should sound additional alarms of concern is that most of the family members either lack proper identifying documentation or effective vetting of what they
produce is impossible, so we know virtually nothing about who we’re letting in! Once in, they are typically never to be heard from again.

And don't fool yourself. The "smart border" option being pushed by Democrats presents fewer physical barriers to illegal crossings which is at the heart of the problem. Yep, open borders!

Democrats Seek to Torpedo Joe Biden 2020 Run w/ Stories About Women But Were Silent When Biden Was in Office

Now that Biden is a threat to the little green men (and women and transgenders) who are running for the Dem 2020 nomination they suddenly discovered he had a past!

You think it's an accident that creepy former Vice President Joe Biden is suddenly getting headlines like "Seven women have now accused Joe Biden of inappropriate touching?" Everyone has known for years that Biden is a bit "handsy" and apparently has crossed the line with women on quite a few occasions. The photos have been everywhere:

Suddenly it's a big deal with Dems fanning the flames behind the scenes. President Trump got into the act too when Biden did what every Democrat must do these days, apologize:

WELCOME BACK JOE! pic.twitter.com/b2NbBSX3sx

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 4, 2019

Soon, images like this started making the rounds:

Poor Joe. Now, he's been reduced to saying 'I'm not sorry for anything that I have ever done' Does that include the time you plagiarized a speech by then British Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock?

This won't be the first sneak attack by Dems on Dems as the 2020 contest heats up. So many of the candidates are genuine certified loons that it's all bound to come out. We already learned that Robert Francis O'Rourke fantasized about killing children with a car and that he actually "ate dirt" after losing to Ted Cruz in the senate race in Texas last fall. And by now everyone knows that Elizabeth Warren lied repeatedly about being a Native American. What else has she lied about?

More to come on the rest of the field and it will all be courtesy of the same Democrat Party which funded the Steele Dossier of Russian lies about Donald Trump. Isn't karma wonderful?

20 Years Ago Dem Judiciary leader Did Not Want Special Prosecutor Files Released. Now, He Demands Them!

Oh well, but at least he's lost weight!

Democrats have demanded that the entire Mueller report be turned over without redactions to the Judiciary Committee now chaired by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY). “The committee must see everything," Nadler told CNN.

But 20 years ago when the Starr report detailing Bill Clinton's perjury to a federal judge Nadler took a completely opposite line:

Nadler 1998: "It's a matter of decency and protecting people's privacy rights" not to release the Whitewater report.“It’s grand jury material. It represents statements which may or may not be true by various witnesses," Nadler said. "Salacious material. All kinds of material that it would be unfair to release.”

Does anyone think that a fully unredacted Mueller report that might contain some private material "unfair to release" would remain private if the full report is turned over to Democrats?

P.S. For those looking for more background on the legal and regulatory discussion this report from the Congressional Research Service is recommended.

Not Surprising: Ocasio-Cortez Shows Complete Lack of History in 22nd Amendment.

What's disturbing is that she seems so utterly confident while being TOTALLY WRONG!

Serving tacos at a Mexican restaurant might have "sharpened [her] BS detector" but it didn't do much for educating today's left wing radical heroine before she could make an historical misstatement on this scale while being a Member of Congress:

According to AOC, Congress amended the Constitution to prevent FDR from being re-elected:

"They had to amend the Constitution of the United States to make sure Roosevelt dd not get reelected."

(Reminder, FDR died in office in 1945; the 22nd Amendment came in 1947) pic.twitter.com/DImHj0caVy

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) March 31, 2019

Now I know why Speaker Pelosi, Rep. Maxine Waters and Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, among others, like having Rep. Ocasio-Cortez around. It doesn't make these older broads look half so idiotic!

Obama's Homeland Security Sec. Buck's Dem Party Line: "We Are Truly In A Crisis" At The Border!

The only people still "manufacturing" this crisis are the Dem leaders who refuse to act!

Is reality starting to set in? Will Dems who have sold hoaxes about Russians, Kavanaugh and Jussie Smollett and climate change be able to regain their sanity?

Here's the reality. USA Today article in the border crisis cites an official at the scene:

“It’s staggering,” McAllen City Manager Roy Rodriguez said. “Really, we’ve never seen anything like this before.”

Not good enough for you? How about this:

Jeh Johnson, who served as President Obama's Department of Homeland Security Secretary said "we are truly in a crisis" at the Mexican border Thursday on MSNBC's Morning Joe.

"When I was in office in Kirstjen Nielsen's job, at her desk, I'd get to work around 6:30 in the morning and there'd be my intelligence book sitting on my desk, the PDB, and also the apprehension numbers from the day before," Johnson said. "And I'd look at them every morning, it'd be the first thing I'd look at. And I probably got too close to the problem, and my staff will tell you if it was under 1,000 apprehensions the day before that was a relatively good number, and if it was above 1,000 it was a relatively bad number, and I was gonna be in a bad mood the whole day."

"On Tuesday, there were 4,000 apprehensions. I know that a thousand overwhelms the system. I cannot begin to imagine what 4,000 a day looks like, so we are truly in a crisis," Johnson explained.

Democrats seen to have forgotten that this crisis has created extreme hardship for POOR AMERICANS who live in the areas impacted. Areas that are spreading with the flood estimated to be over one million illegal immigrants THIS YEAR!

“Whoever tells you there is no danger out here & we don't need the wall, they have no idea what they're talking about. They don't care as long as the businesses keep thriving in McAllen or Brownsville." https://t.co/UtKx2NhLWU

— Angel Mom Mary Ann Mendoza ⭐️ (@mamendoza480) March 30, 2019