President Trump Fires 2 Of Barack’s Most Powerful Swamp Slugs

Even though Barack Obama left office a year ago, we all know that his progressive legacies continue. And it’s terrible.

Thankfully, two of Obama’s most prized accomplishments, Obamacare and amnesty for illegals, are ending. This is all thanks to President Trump’s policy and regulation changes.

However, Obama still has his way in the federal government, as many employees during the Obama administration have stayed during President Trump’s first year, simply to be a thorn in his side. And that is why many conservatives are calling for President Trump to, in effect, “drain the swamp.”

Now that the worst of Obama’s policies have ended, President Trump is doing exactly what conservatives are asking. He is effectively draining the swamp by forcing two progressive liberals out of their high-profile State Department positions of power. He didn’t even have to officially do it – they left before he got the chance. And Obama is furious.

From Breitbart:

Two of the top ten Obama holdover bureaucrats Breitbart News reported in February President Trump could fire or remove are stepping down from their State Department refugee roles.

Acting Assistant Secretary of the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration Simon Henshaw is stepping down from that position, Reuters reported on Saturday.

In an interview on Saturday evening, Henshaw told Reuters he was leaving his position in a routine professional move unrelated to the Trump administration’s policies, which have curtailed refugee admissions. A State Department spokeswoman also said Henshaw’s move was routine,” Reuters reported.

“On Tuesday, Reuters reported that Lawrence Bartlett, previously the head of the refugee admissions office at the State Department, had been given a temporary re-assignment in the State Department office handling Freedom of Information Act requests,” Reuters noted.

The FOIA office in the State Department is the bureaucratic equivalent of an exile to Siberia for someone with Bartlett’s background, sources tell Breitbart News.

As Breitbart News reported in December, Bartlett had been on a temporary assignment in Puerto Rico.

Henshaw was number 7 on Breitbart’s top ten Obama holdover bureaucrats list, and Bartlett was number 9.

 

This is encouraging news for conservatives. To see two of Obama’s most progressive workers leave their powerful positions is amazing news. They clearly knew that their time was up and that they would soon get canned otherwise.

So here’s to another “drain the swamp” win for President Trump!

Source: Breitbart | patriotjournal.org

BREAKING NEWS! TRUMP Just Cut ALL Their MILITARY AID!!! AMERICA FIRST!!!

And this is why we elected Donald Trump to the office of President of the United States of America!

Multiple reports have surfaced today that he Trump administration has made the decision on Friday not to keep sending any more military aid to Pakistan. That’s a saving of $255 million dollars a year to the already overburdened US taxpayer.

In accordance with the Pakistan agreement, the Trump administration can refuse to give monetary aid as a response to its inefficient action against terrorists and militants on its soil.

Not really sure why we kept giving them money even after the 9/11 mastermind Osama Bin Laden was found to be hiding there in a compound close to a military base for years, and was actually being protected by the Pakistani military.

Godfather Politics Reports:

RAND PAUL: WHY ARE WE GIVING MONEY TO COUNTRIES THAT HATE US?

Rand Paul was interviewed by Greta Van Susteren on Fox News about the sequester cuts, which Senator Paul has said will be a “yawn.” She asked him about his own ideas of budget cuts and referred to his proposal to cut foreign aid by about half. She wanted to know which countries he would cut aid from. He replied:

“Well, I think there’s some argument whether it’s been effective. A lot of foreign aid’s been stolen over the years. The Mubarak family in Egypt became very wealthy off of our foreign aid.

In the end, when people were rioting in the streets and protesting Mubarak’s rule and protesting his martial law, he sprayed them with tear gas that he bought with our foreign aid. So I don’t think the foreign aid necessarily endeared us to the Egyptians that were rioting against Mubarak.

But what I would say is I would start by cutting foreign aid from countries who are burning our flag and chanting death to America, countries that don’t really seem to be acting like our allies.”

That would be a start. But what about cutting foreign aid completely? We’re not in favor of our government handing out welfare checks and food stamps even to our own people. And we get really mad when our government hands out these freebies to illegal aliens in our country. So, why would it be OK to give out billions of dollars a year to people who aren’t even Americans at all?

It’s not constitutional to take money from some people in the form of taxes and give it to others for “charitable” purposes. That’s theft. No matter how generous our government thinks it is, it’s still our money that they’re being generous with.

Taking money from us in the form of taxes or borrowing money from other countries or having the Fed print money from nothing in order to give to other countries is just as unconstitutional. If they borrow the money, we’re stuck with the bill to pay it back. If they print the money, that dilutes the value of the dollar. It’s still theft.

In her question, Greta said that “foreign aid has been very effective for us in many parts of the world in achieving certain goals.” This is kind of like saying government education has been very effective. It has been successful in achieving their real goals, but it has completely failed in achieving their stated goals.

It’s not like the billions of dollars we dole out every year to foreign countries is going to feed the starving children or to give to the poor. No, as another Paul mentioned in a presidential debate a couple years ago, foreign aid is “taking money from poor people in a rich country and giving it to rich people in a poor country.”

Once they get the money, they get do with it just about whatever they want as long as it doesn’t harm our government’s agenda. But it also means that that dictator is on the hook to do exactly as our government says to do. If not, then we seek to replace him, and if necessary take him out by assassination.

Even if foreign aid really was effective at helping poor and hungry people in foreign countries or used to build and repair the countries’ infrastructure, it would still be an unconstitutional use of American money. Especially now with our being in such financial dire straits. Now is not the time to be giving out our money to foreign dictators.

Now please explain to me one thing. Why does the United States of America, which is not a rich nation anymore, have to keep feeding money to people who hate us?

We have to be the world’s sugar daddy while we are 20 trillion in debt? Which is an amount we can’t even pay if we were to confiscate the earnings of the entire US population for the year 2016.

Soon just the interest payments alone will amount to more than the whole US yearly GDP.

We Caught Her! She’s Been Indicted On 24 Counts Of Fraud From Her ‘Charitable Foundation’

As Democrats advocate for the poor, and the average working class Americans, their only goal is to accomplish their personal gains and fill their own pockets with money.

Yet again, that has been proven as we see which policies and laws they are supporting. Unfortunately most of the time those are laws that hurt the people they claim to protect.

We’ve witnessed Democrats get away with a lot of crimes over the years. For instance DNC chairwoman Wasserman-Schulz betraying her own party to help Hillary Clinton. And Donna Brazile, another DNC head, passing along debate questions.

Not to mention Hillary, who has always been the mastermind behind everything. She broke the law to use a private email server to conceal the fact that she was taking bribe from outsiders, in exchange for her favorable decisions when she had the position of a Secretary of State.

And recently, we’ve learnt about yet another prominent Democrat who has been caught red handed.

Prosecutors finished their closing arguments in the tax evasion and fraud trial of former Democratic Rep. Corrine Brown (Fla.).

As overwhelming evidence showed, Brown made use of her “charitable organization” for her personal illegal benefits.

As a result of her actions, a lot of children in need were left without their deserved scholarships, the prosecution revealed.

One of the prosecutors on the case, Eric G. Olshan said during the closing argument : “The real victims are all of those worthy kids who could have gotten scholarships, who needed a leg up. That’s who she robbed from, those kids.”

Rather than raising the money for student scholarships, Brown and her so-called charity misused the funds for other purposes.

Just $1,200 out of the $800,000 raised, ended up helping the students.

And the rest, or at least $200,000 of it was spent on NFL tickets, luxury vacations, plane tickets, car repairs, and lavish events, according to My Right America.

The Clintons have used their “Foundation” to funnel money into their pockets for years. Still, they never received their punishment for it.

What are your thoughts about this?

Share your opinions in the comments.

Featured Image Source H/T: UConserative 

Major Arrests Shake OBAMA To The Bone

Many of us have long suspected that Barack Hussein Obama committed many crimes during his presidency. That’s why it’s incredibly ironic that the owner of a gas station named after Obama was arrested on Tuesday for tax evasion.

Fox News reported that Murad A. Alhanik, the 39 year-old owner of the Obama Store and gas station in Columbia, S.C., has been charged with “four counts of sales tax evasion.” Between 2013 and 2016, South Carolina Department of Revenue said Alhanik filed $971,935 in sales tax returns. However, after a thorough investigation, the agency found the store’s sales was $2.6 million.

The department said that Alhanik dodged paying more than $136,000 in sales taxes during that four-year period. He was booked into Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center and is facing up to five years in prison along with fines nearing $10,000 if he’s convicted.

Alhanik renamed his gas station to honor the 44th president during Obama’s first term.

“I see more people come in,” Alhanik said then. “Excited with the name.”

In January of 2017, Alhanik told reporters that he would never change the name of the store despite Obama not being president anymore because “it’s still history.” It seems that just like his idol Obama, Alhanik thought the rules did not apply to him! Unfortunately for him, however, he just learned he was dead wrong.

This wasn’t the only bad news Obama received this week. He was also humiliated on live television when MSNBC host Joe Scarborough said, “Barack Obama wasn’t ready, in my opinion, to be president” and stated Obama was just “a glorified state senator” during a discussion on “Morning Joe.”

“There are so many great things personally about Barack Obama, even though so many of his policies drive me crazy,” the former GOP congressman continued. “But Barack Obama wasn’t ready, in my opinion, to be president. He was, as I said, a glorified state senator.”

“If Barack Obama stayed in the Senate for a term and actually learned the frustrations of Washington, he would have been a much better president, in my opinion,” he added.

Source: http://politicsfocus.com

Rep. Jim Jordan Just Dropped the Hammer on Hillary — ‘You’re Going to Jail!’

Representative Jim Jordan has had some pretty nasty things to say about old “Crooked” Hillary Clinton in the past few days. The U.S. representative from Ohio has got the former Secretary of State in his crosshairs and, by all accounts, is getting ready to pull the trigger.

For Mr. Jordan, it’s all very straightforward… It was the Clinton campaign — not Trump — that worked with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election by paying for the compilation of the infamous dossier.

Former FBI director James Comey testified in June that some of the information in that dossier was “salacious and unverified,” but Representative Jordan asserts that the FBI used it anyway to spy on Trump campaign officials.

“If the FBI took an opposition research document that was unsubstantiated, that was paid for by the Clinton campaign and dressed it up like legitimate intelligence — you cannot do that in America,” he said.

“To date, we have not one bit of evidence that shows there was coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia to influence the election. But we have hard facts that say the Clinton campaign paid Russia to do what? Influence the election — to gather material to influence the election in Clinton’s favor,” Jordan added.

Check it out, per the Dayton Daily News:

This is far from the first time Jordan has become entrenched in a controversial congressional investigation, or fired spears at the opposition party. He was a key critic of accusations that the IRS unfairly denied tax-exempt status to tea party organizations, and he was among the most vocal on the 2015 House investigation of 2012 attacks on an embassy in Benghazi, Libya.

Rep. Warren Davidson, a Troy Republican who is a close ally of Jordan’s, dismisses the notion that Jordan’s investigations are partisan, saying he has been equally hard on GOP Attorney General Jeff Sessions as he was on Obama attorney generals Loretta Lynch and Eric Holder.

Before this whole thing is over and done with, Hillary Clinton is going to be hung out to dry. By orchestrating a scheme to discredit President Trump and secure her own presidential ambitions, she unwittingly was the architect of her own demise.

Hillary, take a memo: You’re going to jail!

It’s perfect poetic justice!

Source: http://cloudpolitical.com

Ted Cruz Demand Tillerson To Investigate Taxpayer Funds Used For Soros Groups

A group of Republican Senators is demanding that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson begin looking into whether or not US tax dollars have been funding groups overseas with ties to globalist billionaire George Soros.

Ted Cruz, along with a few other Republican senators, is going right for the jugular.

Via Fox News:

“Republican senators are asking Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to investigate claims that U.S. taxpayer money is being used to back left-wing billionaire George Soros’ political meddling and similar efforts overseas.

A letter asked for a probe into how U.S. funds are being used by agencies such as the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to back left-wing political groups in other countries.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, one of the co-signers, even said foreign officials and political leaders have come to him with “reports of U.S. activity in their respective countries.”

He said in a statement: “This includes reports of diplomats playing political favorites, USAID funds supporting extreme and sometimes violent political activists, and the US Government working to marginalize the moderates and conservatives in leadership roles. … This sort of political favoritism from our missions around the world is unacceptable.”

The letter to Tillerson also was signed by Sens. James Inhofe, R-Okla.; Thom Tillis, R-N.C.; David Perdue, R-Ga.; Ted Cruz, R-Texas; and Bill Cassidy, R-La. It followed a letter from GOP lawmakers asking about whether U.S. tax dollars have been used in recent years to fund Soros-backed projects in foreign countries.

The lawmakers disclosed multiple conversations with foreign diplomats who outlined active political meddling by the Obama administration’s State Department, including the use of taxpayer funds to support leftist causes in Albania, Latin America, and Africa.

Good move! I finally think there is someone who can handle George Soros, directly, and that would be Secretary of State Rex Tillerson!

Everybody knows that Soros financed only the most radical and dangerous extremists. Obama would be at the top of that list.

Thank God we all survived Obama… and had sense enough NOT to elect Hillary.

It is now time for Soros to be jailed for crimes against humanity.

What do you think about this? Scroll down to leave a comment below!

Mark Levin Just Pulled Back the Curtain on Robert Mueller — Reveals One Thing the Mainstream Media Refuses to Cover!

Constitutional attorney and radio host Mark Levin knows a thing or two about politics, folks! When the former Reagan staffer speaks his mind, people stop what they are doing and listen up.

Well, Mr. Levin appeared on Sean Hannity on Monday and dropped a bombshell about the head witch hunter himself, Robert Mueller.

Levin said the “praetorian guard media” is intentionally ignoring the weaponization of the Justice Department under former traitor-in-chief Barack Obama and the criminal mishandling of classified information by “Crooked” Hillary Clinton.

“The biggest scandal of our lifetimes is staring at us in the face,” Levin said, laying into the DOJ for focusing on what amounts to a massive waste of time and taxpayer funds.

“[Robert Mueller] is investigating everything but collusion. Where’s you’re case, Mr. Prosecutor?” Levin asked.

Referring to the infamous dossier compiled by an British ex-spy as “35 pages of crap,” Levin noted the media has done everything within their power to discredit President Trump.

Levin noted that Illinois Senator “Dicky” Durbin is a “known liar,” but that the press believes him when he said Trump called third world countries “shitholes.”

Check it out, per Mediaite:

At the end of a discussion on conservative’s belief that there is anti-Trump bias at the FBI and DOJ and how it’s negatively impacting the Russia probe, conservative radio host Mark Levin decided to lash out at the media for not covering what he believed are the real stories regarding the investigation.

“As for the media in this country, we have a free press. That’s fine. We also have a stupid press. A very liberal press. A partisan press. When I watch this guy, Brian Stelter, who I really — this Don Lemon or over there, the Morning Schmo and Mrs. Schmo over there on MSNBC, you call that press? I call that a joke!”

Mark Levin is 100% correct. We have a political witch hunt that hasn’t turned up a shred of evidence against the president after all this time… And a liberal media just co-signing it like there’s no tomorrow!

Here’s the video of Mr. Levin taking Robert Mueller to task:

Source: http://cloudpolitical.com

BREAKING: Dems DEMOLISHED In Monumental Fight Over God-Given Right – HELL YEAH!

Southern Democrats are feeling demolished after they just lost a significant vote that will effectively save lives right away. Democrats were against this, but the House voted 75-34 in favor of saving lives, and the Mississippi Republican lawmakers just got a major victory in what could become America’s most restrictive abortion law.

Image may contain: 6 people, people smiling, people standing, suit and text

Southern Democrats are feeling demolished after they just lost a significant vote that will effectively save lives right away. Democrats were against this, but the House voted 75-34 in favor of saving lives, and the Mississippi Republican lawmakers just got a major victory in what could become America’s most restrictive abortion law.

The new law, which Democrats tried stopping, bans abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy. That means any woman who is just over three months pregnant will be forbidden from getting an abortion. This will be controversial in nature as the leftists claim it is “their body, their right” and most people with common sense will state that anyone who is 15 weeks pregnant should have already decided if they want to keep or kill their baby. Any requested abortion after 15 weeks will be rejected in Mississippi, except there are certain circumstances that will be defined. Those might incur any abortion that is required to save the mother’s life if an emergency situation happens and doctors need to make a fast decision. Another situation could be something that will prevent the child from living outside of the womb. The bill, for some reason, does not include victims of rape or incest – but it absolutely should as any woman raped should not be forced to carry the child of the person who attacked her.

Democrats expect to push back against Republicans who fought for the God-given right to live.

NBC News reports more about the controversial law that upset Democrats:
“The owner of Mississipi’s only abortion clinic has said she’ll sue if the bill goes into law — a move lawmakers not only know to expect, but seem to be encouraging, in hopes of eventually getting the nation’s highest court to revisit its rulings and allow states to begin restricting abortion earlier in pregnancy.

“It seems like a pretty simple bill designed to test the viability line that the Supreme Court has drawn,” said David Forte, a law professor at Ohio’s Cleveland State University.

There are two exceptions to House Bill 1510: if the fetus has a health problem that would prevent it from surviving outside the womb at full term, or if the pregnant woman’s life or a “major bodily function” is threatened by the pregnancy. Pregnancies as a result of rape and incest are not exempt.

A number of states, including Mississippi, have already tiptoed up to the viability line with 20-week bans, although the U.S. Senate earlier this year rejected such a ban nationwide when supporters couldn’t reach a 60-vote supermajority to act.

An appeals court in 2015 struck down efforts in North Dakota to ban most abortions after six weeks, when a fetus develops a detectable heartbeat, and in Arkansas after 12 weeks. Abortion rights supporters are dubious that the outcome in Mississippi would be any different.

“The Supreme Court has said and resaid again and again that states cannot prohibit women from obtaining abortions prior to viability, which is what a 15-week ban would do,” said Hillary Schneller, staff attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights. The New York-based group, which advocates for free access to abortion, called the bill unconstitutional and “medically unsound.”

Mississippi’s own 20-week ban has never been legally challenged, in part because the state’s only abortion clinic, the Jackson Women’s Health Organization, doesn’t perform abortions that late in pregnancy. According to state Department of Health statistics, 85 percent of abortions in Mississippi took place before 12 weeks in 2016.

But Diane Derzis, who owns the clinic, has said the clinic does provide abortions until about 18 weeks after pregnancy. Most of Mississippi’s 2,500 abortions in 2015 took place at the clinic”

The only striking part of this bill that caused some Republicans to question the situation was that rape and incest victims might not be protected after 15 weeks. However, that shouldn’t be much of a problem as doctors will likely see rape and incest victims before 15 weeks and make their ultimate decision, if needed, at that point.

Democrats will potentially take this to court and try to reverse the decision. The “my body, my choice” movement will fight back, but the opposing side will remind them that they should decide before 15 weeks – otherwise, they’re essentially killing a child.

This bill will save lives, not ruin them. Democrat pushback is expected but should be easily defeated. Saving lives of unborn children should be more important than taking their lives away when they’re  already half developed and on their way to being born

The new law, which Democrats tried stopping, bans abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy. That means any woman who is just over three months pregnant will be forbidden from getting an abortion. This will be controversial in nature as the leftists claim it is “their body, their right” and most people with common sense will state that anyone who is 15 weeks pregnant should have already decided if they want to keep or kill their baby. Any requested abortion after 15 weeks will be rejected in Mississippi, except there are certain circumstances that will be defined. Those might incur any abortion that is required to save the mother’s life if an emergency situation happens and doctors need to make a fast decision. Another situation could be something that will prevent the child from living outside of the womb. The bill, for some reason, does not include victims of rape or incest – but it absolutely should as any woman raped should not be forced to carry the child of the person who attacked her.

 

Democrats expect to push back against Republicans who fought for the God-given right to live.

NBC News reports more about the controversial law that upset Democrats:
“The owner of Mississipi’s only abortion clinic has said she’ll sue if the bill goes into law — a move lawmakers not only know to expect, but seem to be encouraging, in hopes of eventually getting the nation’s highest court to revisit its rulings and allow states to begin restricting abortion earlier in pregnancy.

“It seems like a pretty simple bill designed to test the viability line that the Supreme Court has drawn,” said David Forte, a law professor at Ohio’s Cleveland State University.

There are two exceptions to House Bill 1510: if the fetus has a health problem that would prevent it from surviving outside the womb at full term, or if the pregnant woman’s life or a “major bodily function” is threatened by the pregnancy. Pregnancies as a result of rape and incest are not exempt.

A number of states, including Mississippi, have already tiptoed up to the viability line with 20-week bans, although the U.S. Senate earlier this year rejected such a ban nationwide when supporters couldn’t reach a 60-vote supermajority to act.

An appeals court in 2015 struck down efforts in North Dakota to ban most abortions after six weeks, when a fetus develops a detectable heartbeat, and in Arkansas after 12 weeks. Abortion rights supporters are dubious that the outcome in Mississippi would be any different.

“The Supreme Court has said and resaid again and again that states cannot prohibit women from obtaining abortions prior to viability, which is what a 15-week ban would do,” said Hillary Schneller, staff attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights. The New York-based group, which advocates for free access to abortion, called the bill unconstitutional and “medically unsound.”

Mississippi’s own 20-week ban has never been legally challenged, in part because the state’s only abortion clinic, the Jackson Women’s Health Organization, doesn’t perform abortions that late in pregnancy. According to state Department of Health statistics, 85 percent of abortions in Mississippi took place before 12 weeks in 2016.

But Diane Derzis, who owns the clinic, has said the clinic does provide abortions until about 18 weeks after pregnancy. Most of Mississippi’s 2,500 abortions in 2015 took place at the clinic”

The only striking part of this bill that caused some Republicans to question the situation was that rape and incest victims might not be protected after 15 weeks. However, that shouldn’t be much of a problem as doctors will likely see rape and incest victims before 15 weeks and make their ultimate decision, if needed, at that point.

Democrats will potentially take this to court and try to reverse the decision. The “my body, my choice” movement will fight back, but the opposing side will remind them that they should decide before 15 weeks – otherwise, they’re essentially killing a child.

This bill will save lives, not ruin them. Democrat pushback is expected but should be easily defeated. Saving lives of unborn children should be more important than taking their lives away when they’re  already half developed and on their way to being born.

BREAKING: Investigation into Trump server found THAT OBAMA AND HILLARY WILL ROT IN JAIL!!!

Former President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used all their power to stop Donald Trump from winning the election.

They used all federal agencies to go after him, which is a huge disappointment.

They must be arrested and sentenced in prison for life.

Circa’s Sara Carter said that an investigation into a Trump server found no evidence of Russian collusion. She spoke to Sean Hannity on Fox News this Thursday. “So there were two warrants granted,” Hannity asked. “One was the FISA warrant, explain that and the other warrant, and explain that they found no evidence of any Russian collusion at all, and that’s what your report says?”

According to our source, USA Politics Today, Sara responded, Yeah, basically what we discovered through our sources was that the investigation into Trump’s server, which remember, is not inside Trump Tower, but outside Trump Tower, but registered to Trump, showed no evidence of any criminal activity that would warrant any kind of prosecution of anybody in the Trump team. So that was a very short-lived investigation.”

“Now, there was also a separate FISA,” she continued, referring to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. “It was an over-all FISA. I don’t have as much information on that. That FISA, though, was a general FISA that covered the whole Russian hacking investigation. Now, whether or not there were people connected to that FISA, we don’t really know. But we know that the warrant to look into Trump’s server found nothing criminal in that investigation.”

“Wasn’t one FISA and one not?” Hannity asked.

“Exactly, one was the FISA,” Carter replied. “The server was not the FISA. It was a regular warrant. The FBI had a traditional investigation when they went into that server. And it was very short-lived. So they didn’t spend a lot of time in the server. They went in there, they didn’t find anything and, in fact, they said they didn’t investigate any emails and they didn’t listen to any phone calls.”

 

Scroll down to the comments and tell us what you think.

Featured Image Source. H/T: USA Politics Today.

Elizabeth Warren May Lose Her Seat to a GOP Navy Seal

Though she was once viewed as the next big star in the Democrat Party, things aren’t looking as good as they used to for Massachusetts Sen. Fauxcahontas, er, Lieawatha, sorry, Elizabeth Warren, as she prepares to defend her Senate seat from Republican challengers in 2018.

One such challenger who may have the outspoken progressive senator in a panic is a former Navy SEAL named Gabriel Gomez, who is reportedly considering a run for Warren’s seat next year, according to the Cohasset Mariner.

Gomez, a former Navy pilot turned SEAL, ran unsuccessfully in a special election in 2013 for the Senate seat vacated by then-Sen. John Kerry, who was moving on to lead the State Departmentin the Obama administration. That seat was ultimately filled by then-Democrat Rep. Ed Markey.

“It’s really making sure we’ve got a crystal clear strategy if we decide to go, because I do think whoever decides to take on this challenge there is a path to victory against Miss Warren,” stated Gomez.

“The nuts and bolts is that there’s a clear distinction on who is really prepared to serve the state in the capacity of the senatorship, and that’s as far as I’ll go on that,” he added, declining to provide further details.

The Washington Free Beacon noted that while Warren has been incredibly popular among Democrats, her approval rating among the broader base of Massachusetts voters has been sliding downward. In fact, her slipping numbers have encouraged a number of other Republicans beside Gomez to consider a run for her seat in 2018.

The Boston Globe reported this week on a recent Morning Consult poll of 2,500 Bay State voters that revealed that while the state’s Republican governor rates as the most popular in the nation, Warren’s approval rating has dropped significantly since last year.

Warren earned the approval of 56 percent of voters while 38 percent disapproved of the job she has been doing. That is a marked change from this time last year, when Warren had an approval rating of 61 percent and was only disapproved by 27 percent of voters.

That less-than-thrilling news for Warren came on the heels of a report in January by Politicothat nearly half of Massachusetts voters, 46 percent, wanted somebody else to represent them in the Senate.

“Low numbers don’t necessarily mean there’s an opening for just anyone to challenge her,” said Steve Koczela, president of the MassINC Polling Group, which compiled the numbers. “Republicans who want someone different face the same challenge they always face: Who will challenge her?”

That challenger could very well be Gomez, but obviously it remained a bit too early to make predictions regarding the ultimate path voters in the state will choose to travel down.

Source: http://www.guerilla.news

IT’S ON! Trump Just Made MASSIVE Announcement – Obama Humiliated!

After more than a year of constant threats, persistent defiance, and harsh trade repercussions, North Korea has finally decided to sit down with the United States and talk about the possibility of denuclearization.

Image may contain: text

This comes at a time when most of the Trump Administration’s opponents claimed the President would never reach a non-violent end to their issues. Most of the President’s critics were insistent that his lack of political experience would prohibit him from being able to broker a deal that didn’t end in war.

However, whatever the United States has lacked in diplomacy over the past year, we’ve made up for in common sense and ability to make business transactions.

Daily Mail reports that not only will the meeting probably take place in the next few months, but government officials from all over the world have spoken out in support of the President and his possible new deal with North Korean dictator, Kim Jong-un:

“President Donald Trump has accepted North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un’s dramatic offer to meet, the White House has confirmed.South Korea’s national security adviser Chung Eui-yong first announced the face-to-face and claimed it was due to take place by May.

However, a statement from the White House did not confirm the two-month timeframe and said the place and time of the meeting was still being worked out.

‘President Trump greatly appreciates the nice words of the South Korean delegation and President Moon. He will accept the invitation to meet with Kim Jong Un at a place and time to be determined,’ White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement a half hour after South Korea’s announcement.

‘We look forward to the denuclearization of North Korea. In the meantime, all sanctions and maximum pressure must remain.’Chung, who made the announcement on behalf of South Korea, led the delegation visiting North Korea earlier this week. The invitation to meet Trump was made to him directly by Kim.

The foreign official said that Kim understands and accepts the fact that joint U.S.-South Korean military exercises will continue and that he also made promises to halt nuclear and ballistic tests until the meeting with Trump takes place.

A U.S. official later said the meeting would take place in ‘a matter of a couple of months’ but did not commit the president to a face-to-face with Kim this spring.‘He conveyed that he wants to meet with President Trump as quickly as possible,’ the senior official stated.The official said the stiff punishing actions on North Korea would also stay in place.

‘At this point we’re not even talking about negotiations,’ the U.S. official said of a plan to hold North Korea to its word that it would freeze its illicit nuclear and ballistic missile development programs.”

Countries around the world have been monitoring the situation with North Korea’s possible nuclear capabilities, and this possibility of a meeting comes as a welcome surprise.

While many countries are hopeful, the President was clear that they don’t intend to let any of their pressure off of North Korea until an actual agreement is met, ad the denuclearization process is complete. President Trump made that very clear in a tweet that said:

“‘Kim Jong Un talked about denuclearization with the South Korean Representatives, not just a freeze. Also, no missile testing by North Korea during this period of time. Great progress being made but sanctions will remain until an agreement is reached. Meeting being planned!’ the U.S. president said.

The planned meeting drew immediate praise from other nations.

A spokesperson for the British government said, ‘The UK welcomes the South Korean announcement that Kim Jong Un has made a renewed commitment to denuclearise and will refrain from further nuclear missile tests while dialogue continues.

‘We welcome the announcement of direct talks with President Trump by May and (South Korean) President Moon Jae-in in April.‘We have always been clear that we want Kim Jong Un to change path and put the welfare of his people ahead of the illegal pursuit of nuclear weapons.

‘We will continue to work closely with the US, South Korea and the international community to ensure that pressure on North Korea continues and sanctions are strictly enforced until Kim Jong Un matches his words with concrete actions. We will continue to monitor developments closely.’

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also welcomed the news, saying that Russia considers the move ‘a step in the right direction.’
He went on to express hope that an agreement would be implemented because it is ‘necessary for normalizing the situation around the Korean peninsula.’

Australia’s former prime minister expressed surprise at how ‘surprisingly good’ Trump has been at foreign policy compared to his predecessors.

Paul John Keating said the United States was directionless under the previous three administrations and Barack Obama blew an opportunity to reshape the world.

On Friday Keating said he had not expected Trump to have ‘such a pragmatic’ foreign policy on China and Russia, and he urged the U.S. president to continue down the path he was on.”

This step in the right direction is a win for many countries for many reasons, not the least of which is the release of pressure to the neighboring countries who have been on high alert.

The lesser battle won is the respect gained for the Trump Administration if they can bring the North Korea nuclear crisis to a peaceful end. As it turns out, you don’t necessarily need to have decades of political experience to solve international problems, and you just have to stop helping those who threaten you.

BREAKING: Trump Issuing Death Penalty To Them ALL Under New Policy – Dems FREAKING OUT!

In an unprecedented move this week President Trump suggested using capital punishment for drug dealers in order to crack down on America’s opioid epidemic.

Image may contain: 1 person

The President’s comments came just a few days after it was reported that he had been praising Singapore’s mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking offenses behind closed doors.

Trump’s senior aid, Kellyanne Conway, who runs anti-drug initiatives at the White House, was quoted as saying that Trump’s position isn’t one-size-fits-all kind of initiative. She went on to make it clear that the president isn’t talking about your local marijuana dealer who sells a few dollars, but instead, he wants to go after the high-level dealers and kingpins who’s sales of millions of dollars of Fentanol translate to hundreds of casualties per week.

Trump has also praised the Philippine President Roderigo Duterte, who has led a massive extrajudicial crackdown on drugs in his country that has left thousands of high-level drug dealers dead. Last year, Trump even went as far as to contacting Duterte and told him he has done an “unbelievable job on the drug problem.”

If this new way of combating the U.S. Drug crisis goes into effect this would be the first time drug dealing would be classified as a capital offense. Currently, the only drug dealers who qualify for the death penalty have been the ones which have been involved in the murder or death of a law enforcement officer.

The president also made it clear he doesn’t see a lenient approach to drug-related crimes as being something that should be tolerated. And isn’t against the idea of implementing a campaign unlike Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” campaign of the 1980’s where children were taught the dangers of drug abuse, along with teaching the fact that they will die if they abuse drugs.

In an unprecedented move this week President Trump suggested using capital punishment for drug dealers in order to crack down on America’s opioid epidemic.

The President’s comments came just a few days after it was reported that he had been praising Singapore’s mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking offenses behind closed doors.

Trump’s senior aid, Kellyanne Conway, who runs anti-drug initiatives at the White House, was quoted as saying that Trump’s position isn’t one-size-fits-all kind of initiative. She went on to make it clear that the president isn’t talking about your local marijuana dealer who sells a few dollars, but instead, he wants to go after the high-level dealers and kingpins who’s sales of millions of dollars of Fentanol translate to hundreds of casualties per week.

Trump has also praised the Philippine President Roderigo Duterte, who has led a massive extrajudicial crackdown on drugs in his country that has left thousands of high-level drug dealers dead. Last year, Trump even went as far as to contacting Duterte and told him he has done an “unbelievable job on the drug problem.”

If this new way of combating the U.S. Drug crisis goes into effect this would be the first time drug dealing would be classified as a capital offense. Currently, the only drug dealers who qualify for the death penalty have been the ones which have been involved in the murder or death of a law enforcement officer.

The president also made it clear he doesn’t see a lenient approach to drug-related crimes as being something that should be tolerated. And isn’t against the idea of implementing a campaign unlike Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” campaign of the 1980’s where children were taught the dangers of drug abuse, along with teaching the fact that they will die if they abuse drugs.

Via History.com:

“The “Just Say No” movement was one part of the U.S. government’s effort to revisit and expand the War on Drugs. As with most anti-drug initiatives, Just Say No—which became an American catch phrase in the 1980s—evoked both support and criticism from the public.

THE 80S CRACK EPIDEMIC

In the early 80s, a cheap, highly addictive form of cocaine known as “crack” was first developed.

The popularity of crack led to an increase in the number of Americans who became addicted to cocaine. In 1985, the number of people who said they used cocaine on a routine basis increased from 4.2 million to 5.8 million. By 1987, crack was reportedly available in all but four states.

Emergency room visits for cocaine-related incidents increased four-fold between 1984 and 1987.

The crack epidemic particularly devastated African American communities—crime and incarceration rates among this population soared during the 1980s.

REAGAN AND THE WAR ON DRUGS

When President Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, he vowed to crack down on substance abuse and reprioritize the War on Drugs, which was originally initiated by President Richard Nixon in the early 1970s.

In 1986, Reagan signed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act. This law allotted $1.7 billion to continue fighting the War on Drugs, and established mandatory minimum prison sentences for specific drug offenses.

During the Reagan years, prison penalties for drug crimes skyrocketed, and this trend continued for many years. In fact, the number of people incarcerated for nonviolent drug offenses increased from 50,000 in 1980 to more than 400,000 by 1997.

SAY NO TO DRUGS

President Reagan’s wife, Nancy Reagan, launched the “Just Say No” campaign, which encouraged children to reject experimenting with or using drugs by simply saying the word “no.”

The movement started in the early 1980s and continued for more than a decade.

Nancy Reagan traveled the country to endorse the campaign, appearing on television news programs, talk shows and public service announcements. The first lady also visited drug rehabilitation centers to promote Just Say No.

Surveys suggest the campaign may have led to a spike in public concern over the country’s drug problem. In 1985, the proportion of Americans who saw drug abuse as the nation’s “number one problem,” was between 2 percent and 6 percent. In 1989, that number jumped to 64 percent.

D.A.R.E. PROGRAM

In 1983, the chief of the Los Angeles Police Department, Daryl Gates, and the Los Angeles Unified School District started the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) program.

The program, which still exists today, pairs students with local police officers in an effort to reduce drug use, gang membership and violence. Students learn about the dangers of substance abuse and are required to take a pledge to stay away from drugs and gangs.

D.A.R.E. has been implemented in about 75 percent of U.S. school districts.

Despite the program’s popularity, several studies have shown participating in D.A.R.E has little impact on future drug use.

A study funded by the Department of Justice, which was released in 1994, revealed that partaking in D.A.R.E led to only short-term reductions in the use of tobacco but had no impact on alcohol or marijuana use.

In 2001, the Surgeon General of the United States, Dr. David Satcher, put D.A.R.E in the category of “ineffective primary prevention programs.”

Proponents of D.A.R.E have called some of the studies flawed and say surveys and personal accounts reveal that the program does in fact have a positive effect on future drug use.

In recent years, D.A.R.E has adopted a new “hands-on” curriculum, which advocates believe is showing better results than more outdated approaches to curbing drug abuse.

SUPPORT AND CRITICISM FOR THE ANTI-DRUG WAR

Determining whether the War on Drugs movement was a success or failure depends on whom you ask.

Supporters of the strict drug initiatives say the measures reduced crime, increased public awareness and lowered rates of substance abuse.

Some research does, in fact, suggest that some aspects of the tough policies may have worked. A study sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services revealed that in 1999, 14.8 million Americans used illicit drugs. In 1979, there were 25 million users.

However, critics say the 1980s version of the War on Drugs put too much emphasis on deterrence tactics and not enough focus on drug treatment and substance abuse programs.

Another common criticism is that the laws led to mass incarceration for nonviolent crimes. According to the Prison Policy Initiative, more than 2.3 million people are currently being held in the American criminal justice system. Nearly half a million people are locked up because of a drug offense.

Many people also felt the Reagan-era policies unfairly targeted minorities. Part of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act included a heftier penalty, known as the “100-to-1 sentencing ratio,” for the same amount of crack cocaine (typically used by blacks) as powdered cocaine (typically used by whites). For example, a minimum penalty of five years was given for 5 grams of crack cocaine or 500 grams of powdered cocaine.

Minority communities were more heavily policed and targeted, leading to a disproportionate rate of criminalization. But the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA), which was passed by Congress in 2010, reduced the discrepancy between crack and powder cocaine offenses from 100:1 to 18:1.

There is perhaps one thing both supporters and critics of the 1980s drug war can agree on: The policies and laws put into place during the Just Say No era created a drug-focused political agenda that still impacts many Americans today.””