Trump prosecutes ex-Nazi camp guard, something undone by Obama; liberals protest.

Why didn't Obama's administration do this?

WSJ

"The last known Nazi collaborator living in the U.S. was deported to Germany following a personal intervention by President Trump, U.S. officials said, ending years of legal and diplomatic wrangling between Washington and Berlin. 
"Jakiw Palij, a former member of the SS in German-occupied Poland and a postwar resident of Queens, N.Y., arrived in Germany on Tuesday morning on a U.S. government flight. He was the last of nine Nazi collaborators under deportation orders in the U.S., eight of whom have died in the last decade. 
"Berlin had long resisted receiving Mr. Palij, now 95 years old, because he wasn’t a German citizen and hadn’t been charged with any crime in Germany. Even now, experts said it was highly unlikely that he would face prosecution. 
"U.S. ambassador Richard A. Grenell took up the issue after his appointment this year during meetings with officials and key advisers to Chancellor Angela Merkel. 
“ 'The president told me directly to make it a priority to get the Nazi out,” Mr. Grenell said, adding that Mr. Trump, himself a native of Queens, had known about the case because of its prominence in the local press. Mr. Grenell later told reporters he had “made it a point” to raise the matter in every meeting he took with German officials.
" Eli Rosenbaum, the director of human rights enforcement strategy and policy at the Justice Department’s Human Rights and Special Prosecutions Section*, told reporters that Mr. Palij’s deportation would serve “as a warning to the would-be perpetrators of future human rights crimes that the civilized world will never cease pursuing them.' ” . . .
*Under President Trump and Secretary Sessions, might I add?

Pundits accuse Trump of showboating Nazi’s deportation  "In the Trump era, even the deportation of Nazis can’t bring Americans together."
. . . James Hasson, a law student and frequent contributor to the conservative media, tweeted: “ICE arresting and deporting an actual Nazi labor camp guard seems a tad inconvenient for the whole ‘ICE is a bunch of literal Nazis’ narrative.”James Hasson, a law student and frequent contributor to the conservative media, tweeted: “ICE arresting and deporting an actual Nazi labor camp guard seems a tad inconvenient for the whole ‘ICE is a bunch of literal Nazis’ narrative.” . . ."Marshall also wanted to talk policy, not politics, specifically about whether aggressive attempts to strip the citizenship of naturalized citizens violate a tradition that treats all citizens the same." . . .

“Now that ICE has literally removed a Nazi from her backyard, where does Ocasio-Cortez stand?” wrote Michael Ahrens, the committee’s rapid response director.

Trawniki concentration camp  . . . "There were 12,000 Jews imprisoned at Trawniki as of 1943 sorting through trainsets of clothing delivered from Holocaust locations. They were all massacred during Operation Harvest Festival of November 3, 1943 by the auxiliary units of Trawniki men stationed at the same location, helped by the travelling Reserve Police Battalion 101 from Orpo. The first camp commandant was Hermann Hoefle, replaced by Karl Streibel." . . .

Himmler greets Trawniki guards  Could Mr. Palij be in this photo?

"This 1942 photo provided by the the public prosecutor's office in Hamburg via the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, shows Heinrich Himmler, center left, shaking hands with new guard recruits at the Trawniki concentration camp in Nazi occupied Poland. Trawniki is the same camp, where some time after this photo was made, Jakiw Palij trained and served as a guard. " . . .

With push from PETA, animal crackers bust out of their cages

Seattle Times

"After more than a century behind bars, the beasts on boxes of animal crackers are roaming free.

"Mondelez International, the parent company of Nabisco, has redesigned the packag1ing of its Barnum’s Animals crackers in response to pressure from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals." . . .

Target Still Hasn’t Learned Its Lesson

Townhall  "As the nation prepares for the back-to-school season, Target still hasn’t learned its lesson. 

"Earlier this summer, a voyeur was caught taking pictures of two sisters in a Detroit-area Target changing room. This frightening incident is not the first to happen at Target because of its dangerous and misguided restroom and fitting room policy—and it won’t be the last. 

Old toon, but it fits the
occasion

"What was Target thinking when it proudly announced to the world in April 2016 that it allows men to use women’s restrooms and changing areas in its stores? Certainly not that voyeurs and predators are looking for places where they can victimize women and children, otherwise, the retailer would have never made such a perilous business decision. 

"Just days after that announcement, the American Family Association initiated #BoycottTarget, a movement that has brought together American families who have said “enough is enough.” More than 1.5 million people have signed the boycott pledge, vowing not to shop at Target until the company reverses its politically correct but potentially dangerous policy. These families—and AFA’s boycott—have had a significant effect on both Target’s foot traffic and sales. 

But as far as Democrats and rock musicians
are concerned...

"As millions are doing their back-to-school shopping, AFA continues to remind families that shopping at Target just isn’t worth the risk. Even though Target continues to be unapologetic, the #BoycottTarget efforts are having impact. But beyond the financial implications for the company, this is an important cultural issue, and Target chose to make itself the example by issuing a proactive statement on its not only controversial but alienating policy. 

"AFA has made it clear since the boycott began that our worries do not stem from fear of the transgender community, but rather from the very real threat that predators and voyeurs, or anyone with evil intentions, would take advantage of the Target bathroom policy to harm women and children. And they have." . . .

Manafort split verdict says nothing on Trump, Russia, and the 2016 election

Byron York  "What does the Paul Manafort divided verdict -- guilty on 8 fraud charges with a mistrial declared on the remaining 10 charges -- mean for the question of whether the Trump campaign conspired with Russia to fix the 2016 election?

"Nothing.

"Of course, everyone knew that going into the trial.

"Special counsel Robert Mueller was assigned to investigate "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump." Mueller's authority also covered "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation," plus any issues that might involve obstruction of the investigation. Prosecutors said before the trial that they would not mention the word "Russia" at all during the proceedings, and that was pretty much the case. They also barely mentioned the name Trump, although it came up briefly in the charges that Manafort gave a Chicago banker a spot on a Trump campaign advisory board in exchange for approving an iffy loan.

"Mueller did not allege any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign, and none were revealed at the trial.

"That's not to say the public did not learn anything from the Manafort trial. Indeed, if nothing else, outsiders got a glimpse into what Washington influence peddlers have gotten away with for decades." . . .

As soon as Manafort is sentenced, he will face another and separate trial in Washington D.C.  . . . "He has been found guilty on five counts of filing false tax returns from 2009-2014. He was also found guilty on three charges of bank fraud. He faces a maximum 80 years in federal prison for his crimes and will be sentenced on August 28, 2018. The jury deliberated for four days." . . .

Ocasio-Cortez, the all-wise queen of the economic world

Daily Wire  "On his industry-leading talk radio show Monday, Rush Limbaugh discussed the young Democratic candidate who's become the face and voice of the Democratic Socialist wing of the party, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and her instantly viral appearance on "The Daily Show" with Trevor Noah.
" 'The really important thing about this to understand is this woman has a degree in economics from Boston University," said Limbaugh before playing the clip of her "Daily Show" interview. "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a graduate from Boston U, she has a degree in economics, and it’s clear she doesn’t know anything. If this level, this degree of complete economic ignorance can get you a degree in economics from a major American university, then something is drastically, terribly wrong."

"He then played Ocasio-Cortez's explanation for how she proposes we pay for the "Medicare for all" and "free college for all" and "guaranteed" living wage for all that she is promoting. Here's her response:

OCASIO-CORTEZ: This is an excellent, excellent question — and, in fact, there’s a lot of back-of-the-envelope stuff based on our values. So, for example, I sat down, ummm, with a Nobel Prize economist last week. I can’t believe I can say that! It’s really weird. But one of the things that we saw is, if people pay their fair shore — share. If corporations and the ultrawealthy… For example, as Warren Buffett likes to say, if he paid as much as his secretary paid, 15%… If he paid a 15% tax rate, if, uh, corporations paid… If, uh, we reverse the tax bill but raise our — our corporate tax rate to 28%, which is not even as high as it was before. Um, if we… If we do those two things and also close some of those loopholes, that’s $2 trillion right there.

"Somehow managing to contain himself for that long, Limbaugh finally weighed in." . . .
Then offered his  "line-by-line rebuttal". Then this follow-up:
Rush Mocks CNN's Response To Him Mocking Ocasio-Cortez

This woman represents a bunch of people who do not like America the way it is and they want to transform it into something it was never founded to be. That’s why we can’t debate them. We’re not even on the same field, folks."

Ocasio-Cortez Visits Former Employer, They Just Went Out Of Business Because Of Policies She Supports
. . . "Ocasio-Cortez’s former employer, The Coffee Shop in Union Square, has shut down after a 28-year run due to high rent and an ever-increasing minimum wage — a policy that Ocasio-Cortez strongly supports." . . .

Jimmy Kimmel, Maxine Waters and, and...John Brennan

Townhall

Brennan's security clearance has nothing to do with his free speech  "By now, we're all familiar with former CIA Director John Brennan's unhinged tirades against President Trump. But in that activity, he simply joins the chorus of Jimmy Kimmel, Maxine Waters, and others too numerous to mention. Each of these loudly and continually announces one Trump sin or another, always without evidence.

"Last week, President Trump revoked John Brennan's security clearance. Brennan immediately declared that it was "part of a broader effort by Mr. Trump to suppress freedom of speech and punish critics." Moments later, over a dozen former intelligence officials denounced the President's action as "suppressing free speech." Somehow, the ability to see highly sensitive information is "speech." That's curious. I thought speech was something that came out of you, not something you took in.

"Since the First Amendment is so critical to our freedom, it's necessary to revisit what it says.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"That's it. Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech. In short, you can say anything you want, short of inciting riot or the famously misquoted "shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theater. That is, you cannot say things that would commonly be expected to cause physical harm to others. You also cannot say things that are deliberately defamatory, since libel and slander cause harm to reputations." . . .

'Unhinged' Omarosa says Trump will start a race war

Cartoonist Ben Garrison certainly has his take on her.

Rick Moran  "Is former White House aide Omarosa Manigault Newman just trying to sell books, or has Trump-hate sent her off the deep end?

"Omarosa said on MSNBC that Trump's efforts to help the black community are "disingenuous" and actually accused Trump of wanting to start a race war.

"Huh?

The Hill:

“We have a lot to lose right now,” Manigault Newman said on MSNBC’s “Politics Nation,” referencing Trump’s appeal to African-American voters during the 2016 campaign.

“I believe he wants to start a race war in this country,” she added.

Manigault Newman has made a flurry of media appearances over the last week to promote her new book, “Unhinged: An Insider's Account of the Trump White House.” In the book, she recounts her time in the White House and on the Trump campaign, and accuses the president of being a racist.

Manigault Newman, who rose to fame on “The Apprentice” and was fired from the administration in December, argued she was as an advocate for the black community during her time in the White House.

“Every single time he had some type of issue with the community, I was there,” she said. “The one thing I realized once I was there was he was disingenuous to his commitment to diversity.”

Manigault Newman said Trump is a “performer,” and that he’s more interested in using minority leaders as props than for in-depth conversations. 

"I hate to point this out but I thought only Kluxers and skinheads believed that a race war is coming. Is Omarosa living a secret life as a Klansman that we know nothing about?

"Probably not. So she's either a paranoid loon or is hustling her book. Or maybe both. Her shameless self-promotion since her book came out has no doubt helped propel the tome to #1 on Amazon. But at what cost to her dignity and reputation?

"Maybe she needed the money."

CNN and NBC should eat this up.

The Double Standards of Postmodern Justice

Our institutions offer no principles to explain why some people’s lives are harmed or destroyed, and others’ lives are not.

Victor Davis Hanson

"The New York Times recently hired as a writer and board member Sarah Jeong. The Times knew that in recent years Jeong had posted a series of unapologetically racist anti-white tweets. She had offered wisdom such as “#CancelWhitePeople” and expressed hatred for males.
"Yet when the Times discovered less graphic versions of such tweets from newly hired technology writer Quinn Norton earlier this year, the newspaper immediately fired Norton.
"The message of disparate treatment was that what bothers the New York Times is not racism per se, but who is the racist and who are her targets.
"Over at The Atlantic, there are also no ostensible rules concerning who is and is not fired, and for what reason. Essayist Kevin Williamson was allegedly dropped by The Atlantic for his prior incendiary suggestion that abortion might warrant the death penalty.
"Fine, it is a free country, and private companies can fire whomever they chose. But The Atlantic had no problem hiring writer Julia Ioffe. She had been let go at Politico for tweeting that President Trump might have engaged in incest with his daughter Ivanka.
"Again, the impression conveyed is that The Atlantic is not so concerned with inflammatory speech as with calibrating at whom the venom is directed. If Ioffe had tweeted the same perversities about Barack Obama and his daughters, The Atlantic surely would have fired her immediately.
" 'The American people are losing confidence in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation not just because after 15 months, he has not charged anyone with Russian collusion — the original reason he was appointed. Instead, the pushback is due to the growing sense that rules are made up ad hoc." . . .

OK, Is Being A Double-Talking Idiot Justification Losing Security Clearance?

Ethics Alarms  “ 'And for Mr. Trump to so cavalierly so dismiss that, yes, sometimes my Irish comes out and in my tweets. And I did say that it rises to and exceeds the level of high crimes and misdemeanors and nothing short of treasonous, because he had the opportunity there to be able to say to the world that this is something that happened. And that’s why I said it was nothing short of treasonous. I didn’t mean that he committed treason. But it was a term that I used, nothing short of treasonous.”

"Oh."

"What?"

"To Maddow’s credit, she did point out that “nothing short of treasonous” means “committed treason,” but to her shame, she did not press Brennan to make sense out of this self-contradiction, perhaps because that is impossible, and also because she isn’t about to be properly tough on a Trump critic who was put on the air to bash the President. The whole interview shows Brennan to be an arrogant, presumptuous partisan warrior. I think my favorite quote is when he says

"I gave him a year. I said, maybe he is going to adapt and change. But it seemed like day after day, week after week, month after month, things just got worse. He did not live up to I think what Americans expect of the president of the United States, to speak with great forcefulness but to do it with integrity and honesty. Mr. Trump, time after time, I think has really just disappointed millions of Americans, which I’m trying to give voice to.

And so, I know a lot of people think a former intelligence official shouldn’t be doing this. I don’t consider what I’m doing as political at all. I never registered as a Republican or a Democrat, you know, for my entire life. But I feel such a commitment to this country’s security and its reputation.

"How generous of John Brennan, arbiter of the Presidency, to give our elected President a year. That’s better than the Congressional Black Caucus, I guess, which boycotted his inauguration and gave him no time at all. The Constitution, however, gives an elected President four years.

"Brennan’s comments have shown that he should never have been trusted with security clearance in the first place."

Brennan Threatens To Sue Trump; Giuliani Makes Him Think Twice  . . . "Giuliani went on to suggest that he would question Brennan about alleged intelligence failures that took place under his leadership, including the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, a terror attack which killed 19 U.S. servicemen while he was CIA station chief in Riyadh. He also alluded to Brennan’s 1976 vote for the Communist Party USA’s presidential candidate, Gus Hall." . . .

ANOTHER SLIPPERY ATTEMPT TO PAINT TRUMP AS A RACIST

Powerline  . . . "The truth, obvious to anyone who has been paying attention, is that Trump is an equal opportunity attack dog (so to speak). He has labeled media outlets like the Washington Post “the fake news media.” These media outlets are run by Whites and rely on mostly White reporters and opinion writers. The truth, obvious to anyone who has been paying attention, is that Trump is an equal opportunity attack dog (so to speak). He has labeled media outlets like the Washington Post “the fake news media.” These media outlets are run by Whites and rely on mostly White reporters and opinion writers.

"No one suggests that Trump’s attacks on the mainstream media are “racially tinged.” Yet it would be just as plausible to make that claim as it is to assert that Trump’s disparaging statements about particular Blacks are.

There’s a name for this assertion: Fake news.

Why is the mainstream media so intent on portraying Trump as a racist? Mostly because the people who write and report for it hate Trump.

However, I’m not sure that hatred alone can explain why organs like the Post are labeling clearly no-racial statements as racist. There’s probably more going on.

I suspect that the Trump-hating mainstream media is panicked by indications that the president is more popular among, or at least viewed more favorably by, Blacks than past Republican presidents and presidential contenders have been. Democrats cannot afford to see an erosion in their support among Blacks in presidential elections. Hence, the all out, over-the-top effort to brand Trump a racist.

"No one suggests that Trump’s attacks on the mainstream media are “racially tinged.” Yet it would be just as plausible to make that claim as it is to assert that Trump’s disparaging statements about particular Blacks are.

"There’s a name for this assertion: Fake news.

"Why is the mainstream media so intent on portraying Trump as a racist? Mostly because the people who write and report for it hate Trump.

"However, I’m not sure that hatred alone can explain why organs like the Post are labeling clearly no-racial statements as racist. There’s probably more going on.

"I suspect that the Trump-hating mainstream media is panicked by indications that the president is more popular among, or at least viewed more favorably by, Blacks than past Republican presidents and presidential contenders have been. Democrats cannot afford to see an erosion in their support among Blacks in presidential elections. Hence, the all out, over-the-top effort to brand Trump a racist."

Yes, many of Trumps’s statements seem racist, but it’s just a plain fact that they’re not.  . . . "But, you may be asking, isn’t it racist when he talks about banning Muslims from entering the U.S. and saying that illegal Mexican immigrants are rapists and criminals? Nope. Why? Because:

• Muslims aren’t a race
• Mexico isn’t a race . . .

Did Trump Really Save America From Socialism?

Between Watergate and Contra-gate, Democrats charged 83 Republicans with criminal conduct and many went to prison. So far, Republicans have not held even one Democrat accountable for crimes committed that are arguably far more damaging to our democratic process than these two Republican scandals.

The American Spectator

For certain he’s saved us from Obamaism and its socialist designs.

"With the appearance of Death of a Nation, the must-see film by Dinesh D’Souza, a debate has begun as to the role Donald Trump plays in American history. D’Souza argues persuasively that Trump has saved America from socialism while the left and Never-Trumpers insist he has set America back. However, the events of the last few years seem strongly to support D’Souza’s view.

Americans need to understand that the shocking refusal by a major political party to accept the results of the last election and the onslaught of verbal, legal, and physical assaults the Democrats have engendered, are not specific to Donald Trump. In other words, it is now clear plans were made by Obama to exploit federal power during his presidency to give the Democrats control of our nation — perpetually. It really didn’t matter if Trump was the GOP nominee or not. In other words, the chaos we are witnessing today would not have been much different had, for example, Ted Cruz won the presidency.

Sure, the issues and the phony narratives would be different but the intensity of the attacks would be the same and the illegal politicizing of Federal agencies would probably still have occurred. There is little doubt the Dems would have created phony narratives customized for whoever the nominee was, similar to how they customized the Russian collusion hoax for Trump. This is what the establishment Republicans and the Never-Trumpers don’t understand. Long before Trump’s candidacy, total war was declared on the GOP when the Obama administration strategically created the conditions to make its progressive revolution a permanent one. Or so they thought.

First, let’s dump the naivety. Obama has been fully in charge of both the pre- and post- election attacks on Trump. He is the leader of the resistance. The idea that his appointees at the FBI, DOJ, IRS, CIA, State Department, etc., would risk committing multiple felonies without direction from him or his henchman is simply not believable as many long-time political leaders and observers have stated.

Kimmel: That Christian cake baker looks like a woman, and his job is gay; Kimmel's friends in the media sink to even lower levels

These are the sort of comments that even many of us Trump-supporters resent this President for making.

Washington Examiner  “ 'America's conscience” took a break Thursday evening from acting as a teary-eyed advocate for all that is just and decent.

"In the place of ABC’s late-night Jimmy Kimmel: The "Man Show" Jimmy Kimmel. The only thing missing were the women on trampolines.

"Kimmel took aim Thursday at the Christian proprietor of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado. For the late-night funny man, the takeaway from Jack Phillips' refusal to bake a cake celebrating a trans person's transition is that the cakemaker might be gay, and that he sure looks gay.

"“It’s funny because this is a guy who spends all day, every day, meticulously designing flowers out of icing. His whole life is gay, OK?” Kimmel said to laughs. “I don’t know if the wrong cake might bring that to life or what.”

"The late-night host turned his attention to the shop owner’s physical appearance, adding for good measure that Phillips is “the totally straight cake baker."

“ 'You would think that someone who looks like the Reba McEntire’s version of Col. Sanders would be more sympathetic to gender identity issues,” the host laughed." . . .

3 Disgusting Ways the Media Twisted the Truth in the Colorado Baker Transgender Cake Story  "On Tuesday night, the Christian legal nonprofit Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed a lawsuit to again defend the Christian baker Jack Phillips, who was targeted by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for refusing to create cake art celebrating a message that conflicts with his faith. Two months earlier, the Supreme Court ruled in his favor in a similar case.

"The mainstream media, unable to ignore the story completely, twisted it out of recognition instead.

"So, what actually happened? In 2012, Phillips refused to create an artistic cake celebrating a same-sex wedding, but offered the gay couple anything else in his shop. For this, the commission persecuted Phillips for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

"The same commission defended another baker's right to refuse to create cakes that stated a message with which she disagreed. Worse, the commission compared Phillips' actions to Nazi apologists, even though Phillips' own father fought the Nazis and liberated a concentration camp in World War II." . . .

A few days later, another caller from a number associated with the name "Scardina" asked for a "birthday" cake for Satan, complete with a red and black theme and an image of Satan smoking marijuana. Phillips denied this cake as well.
On June 4, 2018, the day the Supreme Court issued its decision, someone emailed Phillips claiming to be a "member of the Church of Satan." The email requested a "three-tiered white cake. Cheesecake frosting. And the topper should be a large figure of Satan, licking a 9" black Dildo [sic]. I would like the dildo to be an actual working model, that can be turned on before we unveil the cake."
Scardina's law practice states, "We take great pride in taking on employers who discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and serving them their just desserts."
Scardina complained to the Colorado commission and Colorado found probable cause that Phillips had discriminated against Scardina on the basis of sexual identity. On Tuesday, the ADF filed a lawsuit to block Colorado's attack.