Big govt, Media, Politics

NATO Considering Naming Its HQ After the Late Sen. McCain

If there was one way to put an American stamp on NATO besides bankrolling the defense of Europe from Russian aggression, it would be naming its HQ after the late Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who recently passed from terminal brain cancer. According to NATO spokesperson Oana Lungescu speaking with CNN, the request has already been received to do so by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and “will be considered carefully.” The request, however, came from Conservative UK MP Tom Tugendhat, who wrote in his letter to Stoltenberg that “very few people embodied the values that NATO is built on the way Sen. John McCain III did.” Regardless of one’s political opinion of John McCain, this is a big deal.

Here’s more from Hot Air…

This would be among the most fitting tributes imaginable, even more so than renaming the Russell Building after him. McCain will be remembered mainly as a hawk and an internationalist, I think, a man who believed that the west generally and the U.S. specifically had a duty to side with smaller countries against the illiberal bullies in their neighborhoods. His domestic work as a senator is an afterthought relative to that.

If nothing else, he’ll get a huge kick in the Great Beyond from the idea of Trump’s annual visit to Brussels being a little more frowny than usual when he’s forced to stride through the doors of the McCain Building.

NATO spokesperson Oana Lungescu told CNN that the request had been received by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and “will be considered carefully.”…

In his letter requesting the move, Conservative UK MP Tom Tugendhat wrote “very few people embodied the values that NATO is built on in the way Sen. John McCain III did.”


Big govt, Courts, Politics

Kavanaugh Vows to be ‘Pro-Law’ Judge

Tuesday’s launch of Senate confirmation hearings for President Trump’s SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh quickly turned into chaos with hyperpartisan vitriol in which the crowd shouted down attempts at productivity. What was lost in the oppositions’s onslaught was Kavanaugh’s pledge to be a “rule of law” judge, retain judicial independence, and be a team player on the Supreme Court. Ultimately, we expect Kavanaugh to be confirmed in the coming days, despite attempts to derail the procedure. “If confirmed to the Court, I would be part of a Team of Nine, committed to deciding cases according to the Constitution and laws of the United States. I would always strive to be a team player on the Team of Nine,” Kavanaugh testified. “I don’t decide cases based on personal or policy preferences. I am not a pro-plaintiff or pro-defendant judge. I am not a pro-prosecution or pro-defense judge. I am a pro-law judge.”

Here’s more from The Daily Wire…

rett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, will appear on Capitol Hill today for the first day of his Senate confirmation hearing, where he’ll pledge to retain judicial independence and vow to work with the team of Supreme Court justices.

“If confirmed to the Court, I would be part of a Team of Nine, committed to deciding cases according to the Constitution and laws of the United States. I would always strive to be a team player on the Team of Nine,” Kavanaugh will say, according to excerpts of his opening statement released on Monday by the White House.

Kavanaugh will say “a good judge must be an umpire — a neutral and impartial arbiter who favors no litigant or policy. … I don’t decide cases based on personal or policy preferences. I am not a pro-plaintiff or pro-defendant judge. I am not a pro-prosecution or pro-defense judge. I am a pro-law judge,” he will say, according to the White House release.


Big govt, Politics

Silicon Valley Censorship’s ‘Big Influence’ on Elections

Former Clinton pollster Mark Penn is sounding the alarm, warning that Big Tech could have a “big influence” on our elections, and that it could be a big problem. In an interview with Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, Penn warned: “I think you have to be worried about big tech becoming big brother.” He would go on point out that major social media companies are becoming “more powerful than any TV station.” Add in the censors, algorithms, and the fact that they are private companies and thus NOT subject to the First Amendment, and the problem only magnifies.

Here’s more from Breitbart…

In an appearance on Fox News Channel’s Tucker Carlson Tonight Monday evening, former Clinton pollster Mark Penn warned censorship by Big Tech could significantly influence elections.

A partial transcript follows:

TUCKER CARLSON: So, I’m fascinated by the Alex Jones story because it was Alex Jones, almost no conservatives rose to his defense because the idea was ‘Alex Jones, ew, yuck.’ But, it’s not really about Alex Jones, is it? It’s about the idea that companies can make it impossible for your voice to be heard. Is that a precedent we should feel comfortable with?

MARK PENN: I think you have to be worried about big tech becoming big brother—


PENN: —Because this used to be neutral platforms that said we are open to free expression, that’s our core value, and now they said, not so much. With particularly Facebook hiring 10,000 new sensors on top of another 10,000 and having roving censoring box looking for content.




Big govt, Elections, Politics

NJ Senate Race is a Key Midterm Battleground for GOP

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) is increasingly being viewed as a weak link in the Democrats’ 2018 bid to take over the Senate. Republican nominee Bob Hugin, a former pharmaceutical executive, is closing in on the Senate seat with a significant war chest and media campaign. The cause for concern on the left is apparent, with Menendez just deigning to show a sign of life on air last week, but it could be too little too late with the election just weeks away.

“I think he’s our best chance in the last 40 years,” said Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-NJ), optimistic about Hugin’s chances. “He’s a good man. He’s really had an American dream kind of life … It’s going to be an ugly fight; it already is, but I think there couldn’t be a starker contrast between those two men.”

Here’s more from Washington Examiner…

Republicans are increasingly optimistic about their chances to take out Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., as their nominee Bob Hugin has turned what many expected to be a Democratic cakewalk into a close contest with two months to go before Election Day.

In just a few months, Hugin, a former pharmaceutical executive, has made this blue-state Senate race surprisingly competitive in a Democratic year. Since announcing in February, he has poured at least $15 million into the race, and promised upwards of $20 million, and has flooded the airwaves statewide unopposed from mid-May until Menendez went on the air on Tuesday.

That strategy paid off in the polls, as Quinnipiac and Gravis show him down by 6 and 2 points, respectively, in the only two surveys taken since the state’s primary contests. An internal poll conducted by Hugin’s campaign shows him in a neck-and-neck race against Menendez, which has given both national and state Republicans hope.


Big govt, Politics

Democrats Supporting Criminals

Democratic lawmakers don’t have your back — unless you’re a criminal undocumented immigrant. Then liberal lawmakers from coast to coast, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren, will deploy every available resource to protect you and your family. Shouldn’t it be the other way around?

One would think politicians on both sides of the aisle would give preference to fellow Americans and champion voters’ safety, given that taxpayers fund their salaries and hold the power to elect and remove politicians from office.

But dangerously, the Democratic Party has swung so far to the left that its members — including its leadership in Washington — care more about undocumented immigrants’ well-being than protecting American families.

Take Warren, a 2020 presidential hopeful. In an interview on CNN’s “New Day” this week, she showed us where her loyalties lie.

When discussing Mollie Tibbetts, an Iowa college student who was brutally murdered last month while out for a jog by a Mexican immigrant living here illegally, Warren said this: “I’m so sorry for the family here, and I know this is hard not only for the family but for the people in her community, the people throughout Iowa. But one of the things we have to remember is we need an immigration system that is effective, that focuses on where real problems are.”

“Real problems”? I’d say getting abducted and murdered was a real problem for Tibbetts and her now devastated family. Warren continued by saying we should be focused on reuniting immigrant families who entered the United States illegally and have been temporarily separated.

Never mind that the Tibbetts family has been permanently separated from beloved Mollie, a young woman with so much promise and potential just beginning her life as a college junior — not to mention the thousands of other Americans nationwide whose families have also been forever shattered by undocumented immigrants who’ve killed their loves ones, committed rape or sold fentanyl and other deadly drugs in their communities.

For context, there are over 58,700 known or suspected undocumented immigrants incarcerated in the U.S. today, according to the Alien Incarceration Report for fiscal 2017, released by the Department of Homeland Security.

Someone please tell Sen. Warren and her out-of-touch colleagues they’re not doing time for jaywalking.

Yet regardless of the facts, liberal lawmakers across the country and their many supporters want open borders and the abolishment of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement while demanding that taxpayer money continue to go to sanctuary cities. In other words, they want American citizens to be less safe.

Come the midterms, voters could elect Republican candidates who support President Donald Trump’s common-sense immigration reform policies — including building the wall, extreme vetting and other measures to keep Americans safe — or elect reckless politicians whose loyalties lie with criminals.

The choice is yours.

Adriana Cohen is a syndicated columnist with the Boston Herald. Follow her on Twitter @AdrianaCohen16. To find out more about Adriana Cohen and read her past columns, please visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at 



Big govt, Politics

Elizabeth Warren: “So Sorry” for Mollie…But Migrant Children

In the latest example of tone deafness from the left, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) on CNN’s “New Day” on Wednesday changed the subject from 20-year-old murdered-by-an-illegal-immigrant Molly Tibbetts to lament the woes of illegal immigrant children separated from their parents: Warren said, “I’m so sorry for the family here, and I know this is hard not only for the family but for the people in her community, the people throughout Iowa, but one of the things we have to remember is we need an immigration system that is effective, that focuses on where real problems are.”

Here’s more from Breitbart…

Wednesday on CNN’s “New Day,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) changed the subject to family separation when asked about 20-year-old Mollie Tibbetts, who was allegedly murdered by an illegal immigrant.

Warren said, “I’m so sorry for the family here, and I know this is hard not only for the family but for the people in her community, the people throughout Iowa, but one of the things we have to remember is we need an immigration system that is effective, that focuses on where real problems are.”

She continued, “Last month I went down to the border, and I saw where children had been taken away from their mothers. I met with those mothers who had been lied to, who didn’t know where their children were and there was no plan for how they would be reunified with their children. I think we need immigration laws that focus on people who pose a real threat. And I don’t think mamas and babies are the places we should be spending our resources. Separating a mama from a baby does not make this country safer.”


Big govt, Elections, Politics

NH Voters Demand Trump Challenger in 2020

Although 46 percent of New Hampshire residents say the economy is better under President Trump than Obama, the same poll reveals that 40 percent of Republicans consider a Trump challenger to be “a good thing” for the state’s 2020 primary. President Trump handily won the Granite State in the 2016 GOP primary by 35.3 percent in a very crowded field. Whether this gives energy to rumors of a primary challenger remains to be seen. Meanwhile, Democrats may have the widen primary field in the history of union with over 30 potential candidates indicating interest. Read more…

Here’s more from Hot Air…

A new pre-midterm poll just out in New Hampshire finds almost half of respondents (46 percent) say the economy is better today under President Trump than the last guy to hold that office.

However, a whopping majority of New Hampshire voters — and fully 40 percent of Republicans — say it would “be a good thing” if at least one other Republican challenged Trump in the state’s 2020 primary.

New Hampshire voters are often an ornery sort and their votes only matter early each presidential election year. But this could represent a worrisome omen for the incumbent president, who easily won the Granite State GOP primary in 2016.

You probably remember all these precise numbers. But just in case, Trump took more than a third of the 2016 vote (35.2 percent) in the crowded GOP primary there followed by John Kasich (15.7), Ted Cruz (11.6), Jeb Bush (11), Marco Rubio (10.5) and Chris Christie (7.4).


Big govt, Politics

DNC Chair Benefits from Domestic Abuse Double Standards

Hypocrisy is working to the advantage of Democratic U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota, who just won his party’s nomination for Minnesota’s attorney general. The accusations come after an ex-girlfriend’s son took to social media proclaiming that he had seen hundreds of angry messages, some even threatening his mother, besides other allegations over physical and emotional domestic abuse. While Democratic Party Chairman Tom Perez says they talked about it, the consensus seems to be that there’s no hard proof despite a video of Ellison dragging this child’s mother off the bed by her feet, and the election must go on. Read more…

Here’s more from Breitbart…

Democratic Party Chairman Tom Perez said Wednesday he’s talked to his deputy Keith Ellison about domestic abuse allegations that emerged just days before Ellison won his party’s nomination for Minnesota attorney general.
Perez told reporters as he campaigned in Georgia that he takes “very seriously” any accusation of domestic abuse. Ellison has denied the allegation, and Perez said the matter will not threaten Democrats as they try to capitalize on opposition to President Donald Trump driven overwhelmingly by women.

“Democrats have been winning everywhere,” he said. “Our democracy is on the ballot. That’s why you see the remarkable energy … that I think continues.”

Still, Perez said the national party is “absolutely taking a careful look” at assertions that Ellison, currently a Minnesota congressman, physically and emotionally abused an ex-girlfriend, Karen Monahan, in the past.


Big govt, Economy & Investments, Politics

A Business Lesson for Socialists

As a career academic who teaches entrepreneurship, I am very familiar with the anti-business sentiment that pervades so much of higher education and the public discourse about policy in this country. It is a spreading plague grounded in infuriating ignorance.
So when I run across articles like “A Time to be Bold,” in Jacobin magazine, I want to pull my hair out.
The article, proclaiming the advantages of socialism over capitalism, features sweeping generalizations like these:
–“Capitalism is the chief source of human suffering today and a system that promotes the worst of human behaviors.”
–“Because a small number of people own the productive assets of society, most people have to seek out these businesses for work.”
–“Socialists believe that people should care about and care for each other. Capitalist markets, on the other hand, divide.”
The authors insist that society’s ills can be resolved with state ownership of all private property, redistribution of all wealth and collective decision-making about what to build, make, produce and sell.
What a prescription for disaster! (And how many times do we have to see these ideas fail?)
The article is constructed on one flawed assumption after another.
First, the authors seem to be equating business with huge multinational corporations. But most businesses in the U.S. are small. The U.S. has approximately 28 million firms. Of those, about 21 million — nearly 80 percent — employ no one but the owner(s). Of the remaining 7 million companies, the vast majority employs fewer than 20 people. Further, most businesses in the U.S. aren’t incorporated, but of those that are, fully 80 percent are small, closely held corporations owned and operated by families.
Second, millions of people — not a small handful — own their own businesses and the property in them. Hundreds of thousands more start new businesses every year.
Third, most entrepreneurs fund their startups with savings — not daddy’s trust fund.
Fourth, it takes a lot to grow an idea into a successful business of any size — much less a multinational corporation. A lot of what? Not money. Not power. Satisfied customers.
Far from being exploited victims, we as the consuming public weigh in on what we want from businesses every single day. Don’t think so? I’ll bet that wired-telephone manufacturers, camera filmmakers, newspapers, bookstores and record companies would love to have the business they had in the 1980s. But they don’t.
Why? Because inventors and entrepreneurs have developed something new. And we — the public — decided we liked it better.
What you get with “democratic socialism” is a state bureaucracy or some “people’s collective” deciding what products and services are available. Why should I have to settle for what the majority wants, if I want a niche product?
But this isn’t just a question of a handful of disgruntled connoisseurs. Virtually all radically successful innovations (automobiles, the internet, smartphones) started as niche products, precisely because “most people” wanted what already existed. The companies that had become successful producing the status quo had no incentive to change. But some entrepreneur thought, “I want something different. Maybe others do, too.”
Not only do entrepreneurs have to spend their own money to fund their ideas but they also then have to persuade you to part with your hard-earned cash for their product. If it’s completely new, that task is even harder; why try Y when you’ve always used X? But if Y is good, people start to buy it. Small numbers, at first. Then more. And eventually, lots of people want this new thing.
That’s how innovation works. That’s how new businesses become big businesses.
Democratic socialism — like all collectivist systems — kills innovation, precisely because the objective is to produce what “the majority” already wants.
So, how do we get the things no one’s ever heard of?
We don’t.
Under the socialists’ dream, you can kiss entrepreneurship and disruptive innovation goodbye. Top-down economic decision-making is structurally and systemically antithetical to innovation not only because it is majoritarian (at best) or authoritarian (at worst) but also because it is not user-centric. That’s the kiss of death for both startups and established businesses. Once you think you know what your customers need better than they do, you’re already dying, whether you know it or not.
The reason American businesses are so much more responsive to our needs than government is because businesses know (even if socialist writers don’t) that the public does control business; make customers unhappy and in no time, they have gone to your competition, and you’re out of money.
Of course, this assumes that the public has competitors to choose from.
Governments, by contrast, have no competition and no incentive to satisfy the public. They extract money from you by force (it’s called taxation) and assume that the money will never run out. That isn’t true, as citizens of Detroit, the state of Illinois or Venezuela can tell you with painful clarity.
The key is not to have businesses run like government (or, God forbid, by government). The key is to make government as responsive as the best-run businesses.
(Note that I said “the best-run businesses,” not ALL businesses or BIG businesses.)
This is the polar opposite of what the collectivists are clamoring for. But I’m right, and they’re wrong. How can I be so sure?
Because entrepreneurship produces what the people want. And collectivism fails every time.

To find out more about Laura Hollis and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at



Big govt, Politics

Planned Parenthood Bribes Senators to Block Kavanaugh

Surprising exactly no one, the taxpayer-funded Planned Parenthood abortion powerhouse is throwing hundreds of thousands of dollars at Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins in a last-ditch effort to persuade them to block Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, and this is just in television ads targeting the susceptible senators. It does not include an even greater amount being spent through a health care coalition on anti-Kavanaugh advocacy in their respective states as well as in Nevada and DC. It’s part of what they call a necessary effort to “protect” Roe v. Wade – and their lucrative abortion business.

Here’s more from The Daily Wire…

Planned Parenthood is spending big money in hopes of persuading liberal GOP Senators Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins into blocking Trump’s SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

Last week, the abortion conglomerate announced it will be spending as much as six-figures on ads to target Collins and Murkowski. On top of that, NPR reports, the organization will be spending even more to block Kavanaugh through a health care coalition.

“The health care advocacy group Protect Our Care is investing a quarter of a million dollars so far on ads opposing Kavanaugh in Alaska, Maine, Nevada and Washington, D.C.,” reports NPR.

Several of the state websites for Protect Our Care list Planned Parenthood as a member donor, along with NARAL and the ACLU.

Since Kavanaugh’s nomination, Planned Parenthood has put abortion at the center of the debate, pledging to block Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court at every turn to “protect” Roe v. Wade.