Here is the most important point: “The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election.” Well, we guess that means exactly what it said, and that if after an investigation that lasted 22 months, employed 19 lawyers, assisted by 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants and other professional staff; that issued over 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, and interviewed approximately 500 witness, couldn’t find any evidence of conspiracy or coordination with the Trump campaign and Russia that there was no conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia. All of those Democrats, news media types, and Obama administration officials who declared that not only was there “collusion” but that they had seen evidence of it should be explaining why the Mueller team somehow managed to miss whatever it was that they saw. And most of those folks continue to believe, with a faith that truly is defined as the “substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Well, the Book of Hebrews wasn’t referring to the Mueller report, but that verse sure fits the tenacious way the Democrats et al continue to cling to their belief that “Trump bad” and therefore “Trump colluded.” They all hoped for it, and, bless their little old hearts, they continue to hope for it even after no evidence has been found after 22 months, 19 lawyers, 40 FBI agents, etc. etc., etc.
BY JOHN SHAFFER Special Counsel Robert Mueller has released his report on his investigation of the accusation that President Trump colluded with Russia to sway the 2016 election, and has delivered that report to Attorney General William Barr, who has released a four-page summary of said report.
Here is the most important point: “The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election.” Well, we guess that means exactly what it said, and that if after an investigation that lasted 22 months, employed 19 lawyers, assisted by 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants and other professional staff; that issued over 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, and interviewed approximately 500 witness, couldn’t find any evidence of conspiracy or coordination with the Trump campaign and Russia that there was no conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia. All of those Democrats, news media types, and Obama administration officials who declared that not only was there “collusion” but that they had seen evidence of it should be explaining why the Mueller team somehow managed to miss whatever it was that they saw. And most of those folks continue to believe, with a faith that truly is defined as the “substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Well, the Book of Hebrews wasn’t referring to the Mueller report, but that verse sure fits the tenacious way the Democrats et al continue to cling to their belief that “Trump bad” and therefore “Trump colluded.” They all hoped for it, and, bless their little old hearts, they continue to hope for it even after no evidence has been found after 22 months, 19 lawyers, 40 FBI agents, etc. etc., etc. BY JOHN SHAFFER The mass murder by a white racist who killed 50 people at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand has prompted more calls for gun confiscation or bans. Of course, the President of the United States is being blamed for the incident because the murderer called President Trump “a symbol of renewed white identity.” The President has issued a statement in support of the victims and for the people of New Zealand.
The killer also said that he hated conservatives and was not one, and also was disparaging of blacks, but when he sarcastically claimed that black conservative Candace Owens was one of his inspirations, the left failed to see that he was spoofing and being provocative, and blamed her for the attack as well. The killer certainly hated Muslims, but according to the manifesto he published online, he hated a lot more, and killing Muslims was not his only motive. He claims to be an “eco-fascist,” is a huge believer in “global warming,” warns of the dangers of “overpopulation,” and says that communist China is his “ideal state.” He intentionally chose his weapons for the purpose of causing disruption in the United States, hoping to provoke politicians to call for confiscating weapons, thus leading to armed resistance and a civil war; and it goes one step further – he wanted that civil war in order to divide America racially and regionally, hoping that it so weakens our nation as to prevent the US from defending its interests. BY JOHN SHAFFER Last week this column discussed the national debt/deficit issue. We would call it a crisis except that’s a word the progressives don’t use except for “climate change” and “the Trump presidency.” But whatever one calls it, the $22 trillion debt and annual government budget deficits that are in the range of a trillion dollars are a problem, and one that is getting worse. We think that addressing the expenses of government, including mandates and entitlements is the best path to get a handle on the issue. The progressives, most Democrats, and quite a few “big government” Republicans don’t support most spending cuts or entitlement reforms, but would address the issue from the revenue side, that is, by raising taxes.
Presidential hopeful Sen. Kamala Harris has said that “we can change human behavior,” and the “we” in that sentence means “the government.” One way it does change behavior is through the tax system. As has been pointed out numerous times, if a government wants more of something they will subsidize it (for instance, wind power, electric cars, college education); if they want less of something (or lessen its use) they will tax it (for instance, luxury items, gasoline). BY JOHN SHAFFER The US Senate voted in favor of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act last week by a margin of 53-44. The Act came about in reaction to the recent push by several elected Democrats concerning infanticide. Had Virginia Governor Northam not ruminated aloud about the possibility of killing babies who survive after a late-term abortion, perhaps no one would have thought it necessary to pass a bill attempting to save those babies. Other Democrats and commentators came out in support of Gov. Northam, and New York and other states have taken steps to legalize abortions to the point of delivery, so it is not hard to understand why Senators who are appalled at the prospect of elected officials giving sanction to killing babies who survive abortion would want to take legislative action. Back in 2002, the Senate approved by unanimous consent the “Born-Alive Infants Protection Act”, which stated that a baby born alive after an abortion is legally recognized as a human person; therefore it is without question that killing such a baby clearly is infanticide and therefore is a practice that already is illegal, yet apparently that illegality had not stopped the support for the practice.
|
Local ColumnistsFind articles by date or topic through quick links below. Categories
All
Archives
March 2020
|