Displaying posts published in

May 2017

MY SAY: THE MEDIA AND THE PRESIDENT

Last night after binging on”Fauda” a terrific Israeli series on terrorism and counter-terrorism, I reluctantly turned on the news….CNN to be exact, and Anderson Cooper to be more exact. The news, as everyone not settled down in Mars knows by now is that the Washington Post and the New York Times issued reports that President Trump gave “highly classified” information to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak in the Oval Office the day after firing Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey. General McMaster, the National Security adviser said” I was in the room, it did not happen.”

General McMaster’s denial was streamed in the news feed under the blathering of the CNN panel which agreed that McMaster’s denial proved that the story was true. Huh??? They then went on to speculate that Trump’s conversation with the Russians endangered lives. What a leap.

When the media dust-up settles we will know the truth, but the way CNN reports it, I prefer the fiction in Fauda to the fiction on CNN which passes as journalism. rsk

The Latest ‘Just Like Watergate’ Idiocy The ‘obstruction of justice’ claim is phony. By Andrew C. McCarthy

There is so much legal ignorance in the reporting and commentary about the “Russia investigation,” it is hard to keep up. The latest is that we need a special prosecutor because the firing of FBI director James Comey could amount to Watergate-type obstruction of justice.

The claim is half-baked, but I suppose it is an improvement. Up until now, as I pointed out over the weekend, Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) and the media-Democrat echo chamber agitating for a special prosecutor had forgotten the little matter of . . . a crime. Putting aside all the downsides of a special prosecutor that I have outlined on other occasions (e.g., the constitutional flaws of the arrangement, the fact that a special prosecutor is not actually independent of the president and Justice Department, the reality that a special prosecutor undermines an administration’s capacity to govern . . . ), it is foundational that there must be a crime before a prosecutor is assigned to investigate it.

Even under the 1983 Ethics in Government Act (which lapsed in 1999), Congress required a finding (by the attorney general) that there was information indicating a serious criminal-law violation before the appointment of a special prosecutor (or independent counsel) would be triggered. (See Section 591(a) of Title 28, U.S. Code.) By contrast, Trump detractors have failed to identify any penal-law violation as to which there is a basis to believe President Trump or someone in his campaign may be guilty.

The only criminal offense arising out of the Kremlin interference in the 2016 election is hacking. It is not enough to say there is no evidence that the Trump campaign was complicit in this hacking. We must add that U.S. intelligence agencies have told us who carried it out – Russian intelligence – and have further explained that the Russian scheme targeted both Republicans and Democrats.

So now, at last, we have a gambit to fill this gaping hole in the demand for a special prosecutor: Trump’s dismissal of the FBI director is said to interfere with the FBI’s ongoing Russia investigation; therefore, the theory goes, it could amount to obstruction of justice, a felony. This suggestion is legally and factually specious. It is based (not for the first time) on a misrepresentation of the kind of investigation the FBI is doing.

Severed Heads Far too many government officials never pay the price for their crimes and misdeeds: Clinton, Rice, Napolitano, Lerner … Comey is the exception. By Victor Davis Hanson —

President Trump’s firing of James Comey revealed strange timing, herky-jerky methods, and bad political optics.

Certainly, in the existential political war that Trump finds himself in, it would have been wiser, first, to have rallied his entire White House team and congressional leaders around the decision and established a shared narrative, to have been magnanimous to the departing James Comey, and to have had obtained private guarantees from a preselected successor that he or she would serve and be appointed within a day or two.

But otherwise the firing was overdue.

The head of the FBI (quite outside his purview as an investigatory official) announced in summer 2016 to the nation that he had decided not to seek an indictment of Hillary Clinton. Then, again in the role of a presumed federal attorney, he seemed to reverse that judgment by reopening his investigation. Then he appeared to re-reverse that decision — all at the height of a heated presidential campaign.

Throughout such a bizarre sequence, Comey stuck to a (flawed) exegesis about the nature of federal statutes in question (intent is not a mitigating circumstance in the felonious insecure transmission of classified federal documents).

Comey de facto had assumed yet another new role in addition to his newfound claims to be both an investigator and a prosecuting federal attorney — that of legislator and judge.

Last summer, the many-headed Comey apparently believed that he would face no consequences for his moth-to-the flame desire for public showmanship — given the widely shared belief that Hillary Clinton was going to be president and that Loretta Lynch would probably continue on as attorney general. (Lynch met privately with Bill Clinton on the tarmac five days before Hillary Clinton’s FBI interview, and, around the same time, Clinton allies said that Hillary was considering retaining Lynch as the attorney general.)

In Comey’s case, in his public and congressional statements, he repeatedly emphasized that he was conducting an ongoing investigation of possible “collusion” between Putin and those who surrounded Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign.

Yet at the same time, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper had casually exonerated Trump from just those charges of collaborating with the Russians. Comey may have confirmed that in private to some senators.

In contrast, in the past, Comey had foolishly put some currency in an unsourced and unverified but tawdry and soon-leaked Fusion GPS dossier of supposed Trump sexual antics in Moscow — fake news stories generated, as Comey should have known, by opposition researchers funded first by Republican Never Trump operatives and then by the hit teams of the Clinton campaign.

Yet Comey was uncharacteristically quiet about ongoing disclosures that members of the Obama administration had unmasked names of people surveilled by intelligence agencies. At best, if true, the administration unduly revealed identities and then leaked them to the press; and at worst, it deliberately reverse-targeted political opponents, on the pretext that normal monitoring of Russian officials had, mirabile dictu, caught up Trump associates. Either way, it illegally leaked classified material.

Comey probably understood that keeping silent about FBI inquiries into alleged collusion with the Russians could earn bad enough press to endanger his career. And in the opposite fashion, he seemed to think it was wiser to remain mute about FBI investigations into why and how the administration had surveilled American citizens and then leaked their names to pet reporters.

In the end, Comey’s gymnastics were too clever by half, and he strategized himself out of a job. One of his legacies will be that Hillary Clinton broke the law in using an unsecured server, illegally passed on classified materials, destroyed a great deal of evidence, and participated in Clinton Foundation payola through the cheapening of her position as secretary of state — and got off not just scot-free but outraged that anyone would suggest she should face any consequences whatsoever.

Hezbollah’s Anti-Israel Rhetoric Reaches Fever Pitch But Nasrallah should be careful what he wishes for. May 16, 2017 Ari Lieberman

Last Thursday, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah boasted in a televised address (he rarely makes live appearances) that the next war with Israel would be waged in Israeli territory. Nasrallah said that Israel was “scared and worried… and knows that [war] could be inside the occupied Palestinian territories.” Nasrallah’s tough rhetoric is somewhat peculiar as it comes from a man who’s been living underground for the past 11 years and rarely resides at any given location for any lengthy period of time for fear of being at the receiving end of Israel’s long arm.

Nasrallah’s speech was meant to mark the one year anniversary of the liquidation of Hezbollah’s chief of special operations Mustafa Badreddine, who was killed in Syria under mysterious circumstances. Badreddine replaced Imad Mughniyeh in that capacity. Mughniyeh himself was killed in 2008 in Damascus in a hit widely believed to have been executed by Mossad and CIA operatives in a joint operation.

Nasrallah’s bombast is eerily reminiscent of Arab rhetoric just prior to the June 1967 Six-Day War, which ended badly for the Arabs. Calls for an Arab invasion and Israel’s destruction reached fever pitch in the days preceding the war, with Arab leaders vying for top spot in the shrill contest.

On May 22, 1967 Radio Cairo announced that, “the Arab people is firmly resolved to wipe Israel off the map.” On May 31, President Abdel Rahman Aref of Iraq announced, “our goal is clear – to wipe Israel off the map. We shall, God willing, meet in Tel Aviv and Haifa.” Not to be outdone, PLO chairman, Ahmed Shukairy, boasted on June 1, that, “we shall destroy Israel and its inhabitants and as for the survivors – if there are any – the boats are ready to deport them.” Government leaders of other Arab countries, including those of Jordan, Syria, Yemen, Algeria and Saudi Arabia, joined in on the hate fest.

Israel’s answer to its enemy’s venom was delivered on June 5, 1967 at 7:45 a.m. At precisely that time, Israel unleashed its version of Shock and Awe, and in just under 3 hours, destroyed the bulk of the air forces of Egypt, Syria and Jordan. Some 452 Arab aircraft – MiG-21s, MiG-19s, MiG-17s, Hawker Hunters and various medium and heavy bombers were instantly transformed into expensive heaps of scrap metal.

Impeachment Fever The firing of FBI Director Comey opens door to mass leftist hysteria. Matthew Vadum

Democrats and their media allies are whipping themselves into a frenzy in their quest to impeach the duly elected 45th president of the United States and drive him from office.

It is part of the Left’s collective mental breakdown. These people still cannot accept that Donald Trump defeated the anointed Hillary Clinton in November so they lash out at the president and his successors, often violently, as we’ve seen in recent months. This Trump Derangement Syndrome allows left-wingers to justify a growing laundry list of antisocial behavior in the furtherance of their goal. The same people pushing Trump’s impeachment sat by silently as Barack Obama, the most despotic, overreaching president since the great proto-fascist Woodrow Wilson, committed impeachable offenses nearly every day.

At the moment, the Left’s ire is focused on Trump’s unexpected decision last week to fire FBI Director James Comey. Trump explained to Comey in a letter that his employment was being terminated based on the recommendation of the Department of Justice. Both Republicans and Democrats had been furious with Comey in recent years because the unelected official inappropriately injected himself and the FBI into political matters. But now Trump’s enemies are claiming his termination of Comey’s employment constitutes obstruction of justice because the FBI is investigating far-fetched allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

This push to end the Trump administration came as MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” co-host Joe Scarborough made a case for impeaching President Trump. With his new fiancee, co-host Mika Brzezinski at his side, the former Republican congressman from Florida declared in an authoritative-sounding voice that the president admitted he fired FBI Director James Comey last week “to end an investigation against the president and all the president’s men, which is exactly what happened.”

And I’m not being hyperbolic when I say it, if there are articles of impeachment ever drawn up, the first article of impeachment drawn up against Donald Trump will be the first article of impeachment drawn up against Richard Nixon, and that is obstruction of justice. Because I could find you a thousand Republican criminal defense lawyers across America who could say what Donald Trump has admitted already on national television could rise to the level of obstruction of justice.

This isn’t what actually happened even though the media keeps reporting over and over again that the “real” reason the president fired Comey was specifically to thwart an investigation into the Russian conspiracy theory nonsense.

For example, Dylan Matthews wrote a piece at Vox with the bold headline, “Firing James Comey to impede an investigation isn’t smoke. It’s fire.” But the article itself, which compares the circumstances surrounding the near-impeachment of President Richard Nixon, is a real letdown, rife with leaps in logic.

It takes as a given that Trump admitted he fired Comey for a nefarious, corrupt, self-serving purpose, something that is patently untrue. Nor is it clear that Trump violated any law, as Georgetown Law professor Jonathan Turley, an honest leftist, has said.

Matthews writes:

The fact of the matter is that without any more information than we already have, we already know Trump’s conduct is almost as outrageous as what Nixon acknowledged in the smoking gun tape. In Nixon’s case, what crossed the line, moving top leaders from his own party to go to the White House and tell Nixon that his presidency was over, was Nixon’s attempt to hamper the FBI’s investigation into Watergate.

And we know, for a fact, that Trump fired FBI Director James Comey because he was upset by the FBI’s investigation into his Russia ties.

We know that because Trump said so himself. Asked by NBC’s Lester Holt why he fired Comey, Trump replied, “I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.'”

But do we know “for a fact” what Matthews claims we know?

Trump’s comment about Russia came during the NBC interview last week and took the form of one of the president’s rambling, stream-of-consciousness answers. In one two-and-a-half segment in the interview, Holt badgered Trump, interrupting him an astonishing nine times, which surely could not have made it easy for Trump – or anyone – to stay firmly on-topic throughout.

“Look, he’s a showboat,” Trump said of Comey. “He’s a grandstander. The FBI has been in turmoil. You know that, I know that, everybody knows that. You take a look at the FBI a year ago, it was in virtual turmoil — less than a year ago. It hasn’t recovered from that.”

After acknowledging he met with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who wrote a detailed legal memo urging Comey’s dismissal, Trump said he accepted Rosenstein’s recommendations but added he was planning to fire Comey anyway.

“Oh, I was going to fire regardless of recommendation,” Trump said.

According to a transcript at Real Clear Politics, the rest of the conversation went like this with Trump jumping around from subject to subject. Part of the transcript is reproduced below so readers can get a sense of just how convoluted the discussion was.

Does a hijab come with the boy’s skirt? By Carol Brown

One of the most prestigious private schools in the UK has made “boys” and “girls” uniforms interchangeable because gender is up for grabs these days. Breitbart reports:

One of Britain’s top private schools is bringing in ‘gender-neutral’ uniforms that would allow boys to wear skirts, as teachers report growing numbers of children ‘questioning their gender identity’.

The move by Highgate School in north London comes as activist pupils at schools across the country are demanding ‘gender-neutral’ bathroom facilities, a ban on terms they deem ‘sexist’, and for teachers to use gender-neutral pronouns such as “they”. [snip]

[Headmaster] Pettitt said some former pupils at the school, whose alumni include the cricketer Phil Tufnell and the poet T.S. Eliot, have opposed the changes.

“They write in and say if you left children to their own devices they would grow up differently and you are promoting the wrong ideas.”

But the headmaster added that if boys choose to wear skirts, then “if [as a result] they feel happier and more secure in who they are, it must be a good thing.”

Activist pupils are “demanding.” What’s new?

As to the observation that a growing number of students are questioning their gender identity, that wouldn’t be the case if we’d stop bombarding them with crazy messages that create confusion where there would otherwise be none. But we are bombarding them. And it’s criminal.

The Sunday Times reported figures show a surge in the number of children wanting to change gender, with more than 2,000 minors referred to north London’s Gender Identity Clinic (GIC) at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust last year, compared to just 100 when it opened eight years ago.

But critics warn the rush by schools to implement gender-neutral policies being demanded by activists risked encouraging “copycat” behaviour amongst children, fuelled by social media and the internet.

The New Stage of Cyber Warfare By Rachel Ehrenfeld

The ongoing massive cyber hacking for ransom that at the time of this writing has reportedly affected 150 countries and at least 200,000 institutions was a disaster waiting to happen.

The July 2009 North Korean cyber-attacks on the United States and South Korea’s government and major business and public organizations in the form of denial of service, signaled that it was only a question of time before digital weapons are used as Weapon of Mass Effect (WME). It did not take long before service denial attacks escalated into cyber espionage, stealing data from government, public and private entities and academic institutions, causing untold economic damage. The weaponization of cyber soon followed; recall the Stuxnet, the first publicly known digital weapon that was said to cause physical damage to Iran uranium enrichment plant in Natanz, in 2010.

On July 9, 2012, former CIA and NSA director, Gen. Michael Hayden, speaking at the American Center for Democracy’s Economic Warfare Institute’s briefing on Capitol Hill, on Economic Warfare Subversions: Anticipating the Threats, said he was worried that it would not take long for “Hackers to acquire the skills and the tools we currently associate with nation states.”

As we have since seen, Gen. Hayden was right to worry. While not widely publicized, the scope of cyber-attacks by seemingly loosely affiliated hacking groups and the information they sell on the dark web has grown exponentially. Just one year later, two major attacks on the Internet hinted what to expect if/when our economic and financial infrastructures are hit by different attacks at once. Cyberbunker – not a Chinese – but a Dutch web hosting company generated the largest global distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack on the spam filtering company, Spamhouse. When that attack came to light, in 2013, this author has warned: “This new economic warfare presents a nascent threat in complex areas that challenge analysis and identification. While at first our streets will not be littered with bodies as with a nuclear attack, a stealth attack on our economic, financial and communication channels, could in short time destroy the U.S. economy and devastate its people. Perhaps it’s time to rethink our mostly digital dependent economy.”

Criminals, terrorists and rough nations operate under cover of the Dark Web, which masks their identities. It is too early to say who the alleged ‘hacking collective’ known as the ‘Shadow Brokers’ is affiliated with. This is the group that is said to have released the ransom malware that paralyzed hospitals in Britain, telecommunication and gas companies in Spain, and other government and public institutions in all over the world. The unprecedented global attack would yield at least $60 million to the hackers (200,000 victims paying $300 in ransom), though cyber experts claim only some $70K in Bitcoin were paid. Judging by previous reactions from cyber experts immediately after a major attack, I doubt this is accurate.Even if the ‘Shadow Brokers’ are not affiliated with Iran North Korea, China, Russia, al Qaeda, ISIS and their ilk, it is reasonable to assume the stolen data in their possession would generate much higher revenues. Upgrading computers and network security may safeguard new information, but not the valuable information that has been stolen.

Even if the ‘Shadow Brokers’ are not affiliated with Iran North Korea, China, Russia, al Qaeda, ISIS and their ilk, it is reasonable to assume the stolen data in their possession would generate much higher revenues. Upgrading computers and network security may safeguard new information, but not the valuable information that has been stolen.

Venezuela – Socialism’s Legacy by Sydney Williams

“Venezuela has changed forever.”

Hugo Chavez (1954-2013)

President of Venezuela 1999-2013

As Mr. Chavez said, Venezuela has changed – from the richest country in South America to one of the poorest, from an economy based on abundant natural resources, including the largest oil reserves in the world[1], to one where people are starving, from a free country to a dictatorship.

Unlike many tragedies, the one in Venezuela is man-made. No natural storm or Biblical plague visited Venezuela. It was men – two in particular – who, in the pursuit of personal power and under the guise of socialism, destroyed the country and rendered its people impoverished. Venezuela, with a population of 31.2 million, is in north-eastern South America, with 1700 miles of coastline on the Caribbean and the Atlantic. Just north of the equator, it has a topography that ranges from rain forests in the Amazon basin to alpine glaciers in the Andes. The lushness of its forests prompted novelist Romulo Gallegos to write poetically of “the golden spring of the araguaneyes.” Venezuela is ranked 7th in the world, in number of plants – and now ranked near the bottom in terms of freedoms and wealth.

Besides oil, Venezuela had been an exporter of coffee, cocoa and manufactured products. Last year, the Frazier Institute’s “Economic Freedom of the world: 2016 Annual Report” ranked it dead last, as its citizens struggled to gain necessities, like food, water and even toilet paper. It has the weakest property rights in the world, according to the Heritage Foundation. How does Nicolas Maduro reward his loyalists, with oil revenues down more than 60% from their peak? Amanda Taub and Max Fisher of the New York Times recently suggested: “…the most valuable resource in Venezuela is access to favorable exchange rates. By leveraging official government rates, which value the bolivar considerably higher than the unofficial rate, someone with the proper connections can generate a small fortune out of thin air.”

There are those who blame Venezuela’s troubles on falling oil prices, or on a drought that effected hydro-electric power production, but other countries have dealt with such problems. Those industries, and many others, including agriculture and banking, were expropriated and nationalized by Chavez and his successor Mr. Maduro, which meant by-passing the inherent fairness and equality embedded in free markets.

It has been socialism that has brought this country to its knees – the arrogant belief that government can assume the means of production, dictate distribution methods and affix prices better than markets. The consequence of its failure can be seen in the starving faces of children and in the desperate countenances of demonstrators. Last year, CNBC reported that the economy shrank by 18.6 percent, with inflation at 800 percent. Official unemployment rates are around 7%, but unofficially rates are between 18 and 25 percent. Real numbers are certainly higher, probably much higher, with no relief on the horizon.

Margaret Thatcher warned: “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” Keep in mind, politics is about power. Governments control enormous budgets. According to the 2017 Index of Economic Freedom, Venezuela’s government accounted for 40.2% of GDP over the past three years, with deficits averaging 16.1% of GDP. Public debt is equivalent of 48.8% of GDP.

How The War Against Israel Is Being Fought Alex Grobman, PhD

The State of Israel,” declared David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, “will be judged not by its riches or military power, nor by its technical skills, but by its moral worth and human values.”1 Israel is engaged in a world-wide political war against a vast array of organizations seeking her demise. Attempts to dehumanize her through delegitimization continues unabated.

From debates in universities, among left-wing European movements, academics, church associations, unions, segments of the Western media, human rights groups, entertainers, a number of liberals and some Arab and Third World countries, Israel’s right to exist remains in dispute.2 British journalist Melanie Philips observed: “Israel inspires an obsessional hatred of a type and scale that is directed at no other country.”3

War of Analogy

The goal is to isolate Israel, criminalize her actions and expose her as an international war criminal, an occupier of Arab lands and a rightwing religious theocracy. They want to deny her the fundamental rights of self- defense and security in an asymmetric war, erode her stature, and turn her into a pariah state through lies, disinformation and double standards. To undermine the legal, political and moral justification for the Jewish state, Israel must be seen as the impediment to peace, and an oppressive government with no historic or legal claim to the land of Israel or to Jerusalem her capital. 4

This “War of Analogy,” a term coined by former Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon, describes the spurious analogies comparing Israel to the crusaders, colonialists and the former apartheid regime of South Africa. 5 The war is waged in the media and in cyberspace, with its websites, blogs, social networks and forums.6 The profusion of this technology allows hate speech, in the form of racist and vile comments by readers, to remain for days on respectable mainstream media websites. Access to hate literature and propaganda such as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Hitler’s Mein Kampf can easily be purchased at Amazon or read on the Internet.

In response to cyber-attacks, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu established the National Cyber Directorate to create a “digital Iron Dome” to protect the country, and the formation of a national program to train young people for cyber warfare.7

Nathan Sharansky, an Israeli politician, human rights activist and once a refusenik in the former Soviet Union, sees these new attacks as presenting a unique challenge. Traditional antisemitism threatened the Jewish people or the Jewish religion.8 Individual Jews were denied the right “to live as equal members in a society. The new anti-Jewishness denies the right of Jewish people to live as equal members in the family of nations…. All that has happened is that we’ve moved from discrimination against the Jews as individuals to the discrimination against the Jews as a people.9

The Juggernaut and the Jerks By Joan Swirsky —******

Wanna see Democrats and media hacks weep? Hand them this list!

Since President Trump was inaugurated on January 20, 2017, a number of people have scrupulously monitored his accomplishments. They include Sean Hannity’s producer Sweet Baby James, Gateway Pundit founder Jim Hoft, conservative commentator and former presidential candidate Gary Bauer, and Jeff Dunetz, creator of the blog The Lid, among others. The listing below was compiled by the above-mentioned people and represents many but not all of the non-stop accomplishments of President Trump––the juggernaut––during his first three months in office.

But the list does not elaborate on the accomplishments of the first three weeks of the fourth month, which include, among other things, the completion of his cabinet appointments, signing a cybersecurity executive order for a sweeping review of the federal government’s digital vulnerabilities and the adoption of specific security practices; an unprecedented trade deal with China involving certain foods, natural gas, and biotech products; creating a voter-fraud commission to clean up the system; preparation for a devastating cyberattack against America’s electric grid; and the firing of FBI Director James Comey. Nor is there any mention of the hundreds if not thousands of personal phone calls the president has made to shakers and movers in the U.S. as well as world leaders.

If these accomplishments are not familiar, that’s because 99 percent of the media––the jerks––are a de facto arm of the Democratic National Committee and the far-left fringe, and are so terminally distressed by the fact that Mr. Trump won the presidency that they obstinately refuse to report what by any objective standards is the news. This is because:

They’ve been pushing leftist values for well over a half century and are unable to admit that their anti-Trump, pro-Hillary message was an utter and complete failure.
They are part and parcel of the vast, contaminated, rancid, crooked, pay-for-play, corrupt swamp that candidate Trump promised to drain, and President Trump is now draining.
The man they mock––for his syntax and phrasing, style of governing, unpredictability, and so-called contradictions––has both confounded and trumped them at every turn.

This is why they remain fixated on the fairy tale of a Trump-Russian connection. They have nothing else––as in nothing!
LIGHTNING

After Pres. Trump’s first month in office,

235,000 jobs were added to our economy in February, 100,000 more than expected;
40 percent fewer illegal immigrants crossed our border;
$3 trillion was added to the stock market;
Judge Gorsuch, a constitutionalist worthy of Justice Scalia’s seat, was nominated to the Supreme Court.

In his first 100 days:

appointments of Vice President Mike Pence, pro-life conservative;
Justice Neil Gorsuch, an originalist committed to the Constitution;
Attorney General Jeff Sessions, staunch conservative committed to the rule of law;
Defense Secretary James Mattis, a warrior committed to restoring America’s military;
Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, a former general committed to border security;
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, a former CEO who understands how the real world works;
Housing and Urban Development Secretary Dr. Ben Carson, a brain surgeon from a humble background;
Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, a doctor who understands health care;
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, an advocate of school choice and educational reform;
Energy Secretary Rick Perry, former governor of Texas and expert on the energy industry;
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, former CEO who understands the business world;
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, a conservative committed to reining in big government;
U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, a fearless advocate for American values;
U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, a true friend of Israel;
White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, a conservative warrior against crony capitalism and the left;
National Security Adviser Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, an accomplished military commander;
and White House Counterterrorism Adviser Sebastian Gorka, committed to defeating radical Islam.

President Trump;

restored the U.S. alliance with Israel and welcomed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House;
restored U.S. leadership in the world;
enforced red lines against the use of chemical weapons in Syria;
dropped the Mother of All Bombs (MOAB) on ISIS, sending a clear message to Iran and North Korea;
secured the Chinese cooperation in pressuring North Korea and the release of Aya Hijazi, American charity worker held in Egypt since 2014;
imposed a five-year ban on lobbying the government by former White House officials and a lifetime ban on lobbying for foreign governments by former White House officials;
repeatedly called out the liberal media for “fake news”;
repealed Obama mandate that forced states to fund Planned Parenthood;
signed executive order reinstating Reagan policy against taxpayer funding of overseas abortions;
stopped U.S. funding to the United Nations Population Fund, which promotes abortions;
signed the following Executive Orders
to mandate a comprehensive plan to defeat ISIS,
to begin construction of the border wall and hire additional 5,000 border agents,
to order the Justice Department to cut funding to sanctuary cities,
to institute a temporary federal hiring freeze,
to institute a travel ban on individuals from a select number of countries embroiled in terrorist atrocities;
to withdraw from the Transpacific Partnership trade deal,
to mandate that two regulations will be repealed for every new one issued,
to institute a comprehensive approach to illegal immigration and crime; et al.