Melania Trump

The New Left: Petty and Dangerous

The New Left: Petty and Dangerous

By Erik Rush •

Well, it appears that there’s no fruit hanging too low for the political left to take a swing, and it becomes clearer with every news cycle that they’re far too self-involved and arrogant to consider that an overwhelming majority of our citizens might one day come to the conclusion that their absolute political disenfranchisement would be best for us all.

As I’ve indicated repeatedly, I came to this conclusion quite some time ago.

One of the more feeble of the left’s recent attempts to demonize President Donald Trump has been by proxy: That of generally disparaging First Lady Melania Trump’s choice of White House Christmas decorations.

As the popular humorist Dave Barry has been wont to say on occasion, I am absolutely not making this up.

This week, the First Lady unveiled the White House’s Christmas décor and was immediately censured by the press, activists and online trolls for the aesthetics of the theme. This is the second year they’ve done this, and on both occasions, the criticism has been grasping, specious and trivial. In the case of the press, it further underscores a lack of concern for their credibility, a topic I covered last week in this space.

Is there any profit to pointing out that such trivialities were of little concern to our last president’s detractors, and that this emphasizes the pettiness and lack of character of the left? Only for those who aren’t yet aware that those on the left are essentially in the service of evil, I suppose.

While the left’s assessment that the First Lady ought to be caned for her taste leads to scoffs and shaking of heads from the rest of us, of course there are other activities in which they are engaged that are equally petty and craven, but far more grave.

Like their attempts to make political hay out of the president’s daughter Ivanka Trump sending emails to White House personnel using a personal email account in 2017, for example. According to the Bird Cage Liner of Record (The Washington Post), this was in violation of federal records rules, in the estimation of “people familiar with a White House examination of her correspondence.”

Which could be just about anyone who can read, of course.

Those who have been critical of the press treatment of the Trumps (myself included) have pointed to the hypocrisy of this conduct, especially in light of the press’ sycophantic dedication to the last person who occupied the White House. This is obviously a valid argument considering their relative lack of interest in the Hillary Clinton email server investigation. During her time as Secretary of State, Clinton used a private email server for official communications, rather than her official State Department email account.

To further highlight the hypocrisy in play, the Post actually referenced Donald Trump having made an issue of the Clinton email server scandal in his 2016 campaign. Further, the publication drew parallels between this and Ivanka’s email activities, summarily affirming the impropriety of Clinton’s actions whilst remaining unwilling to actually condemn her for them.

Now, I realize that Ivanka Trump is not a powerful cabinet official, as Clinton was, nor did she take great pains to cover up the nature of her communications, as Clinton did. FBI investigations haven’t uncovered emails containing classified information in Ivanka’s communications, nor any market “Secret” or “Top Secret,” as was the case with Hillary Clinton.

Still, it is quite likely that this issue is going to be drilled down to the full extent of the Beltway’s ability to do so (as opposed to the fullest extent of the law). The email server in question is also used by Ivanka’s husband, Jared Kushner, whom the left hates almost as much as the president. The revelation of his daughter’s behavior vis-à-vis email reportedly did concern advisers to President Trump, who feared that it would indeed be compared to Hillary Clinton’s personal email use.

The take-away from all this is more than just the hypocrisy and double standards of the left (the press in particular). It verifies the fact that despite his widespread support, the president is operating in a town full of crooked lawyers who hate his guts, and he knows it. To some extent, Trump is perpetually walking on eggshells. Party affiliation means little to nothing in this environment, and his dedication to setting right as much as he can will mean even less if he is forced from office for something or other that would be wholly overlooked had he the political temperament of his odious predecessor.

Originally published in WorldNetDaily

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
More Lawfare by the Left Against the Executive Branch

More Lawfare by the Left Against the Executive Branch

by Bob Bennett •

“Lawfare” is the use of often-frivolous lawsuits to intimidate, silence and stymie opponents. The absurd suits of blue states against the president, in order to block his immigration orders are good examples.

Here’s yet another reason why Congress should strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over immigration–a power Congress does possess:

Lawfare by blue states and DC, fighting to keep DACA. A CNN article on the story includes what may be the most idiotic statement of the year:

“I filed suit against President Trump and his administration to protect DACA because Dreamers are just as American as first lady Melania Trump,” New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas said in a statement.

This guy is a lawyer? Melania Trump is a citizen, who entered the country legally; the DACA beneficiaries are here only by virtue of an unconstitutional memo from former (and present) community organizer, Barack Obama, who even admitted he lacked the authority to do that.

If we can believe CNN, the following states (and DC) are joining in this folly: New Mexico, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington.

Although the real strategy is the time-honored tool of the Left: “Let’s just do whatever we please,” supposedly, the grounds that may be used are that President Trump violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which lays out a lengthy process that requires ample notice and time for the public to comment on substantive federal rulemaking,” writes CNN.

You may remember that in Texas, et al. v United States, the district court under Judge Hanen held, in part that the Obama Administration had not followed the procedures dictated by the APA, as grounds for an injunction of DAPA, Obama’s other unconstitutional amnesty for parents of legal residents and citizens. I haven’t checked, but it’s likely that he violated the APA with DACA also. So this seems a pointless strategy.

The Obama Admin appealed the injunction to the Fifth Circuit, which held in part that:

“The [Immigration & Naturalization Act] prescribes how parents may derive an immigration classification on the basis of their child’s status and which classes of aliens can achieve deferred action and eligibility for work authorization. DAPA is foreclosed by Congress’s careful plan; the program is ‘manifestly contrary to the statute’ and therefore was properly enjoined [by the lower court].”


“Even with special deference” to the Secretary [of DHS], the INA flatly does not permit the reclassification of millions of illegal aliens as lawfully present and thereby make them newly eligible for a host of federal and state benefits, including work authorization.”

The Fifth Circuit also quoted Obama, making this childlike assertion:

“As the district court recognized, the President explicitly stated that it was the failure of Congress to enact such a program that prompted him . . . to change the law.’”

When the case reached the Supreme Court, it was deadlocked 4–4, so the Fifth Circuit decision stands, and this is settled law.

DACA has the same defects as DAPA, so if these suits reach the Supreme Court, the same four justices will find in the same way, and Gorsuch will surely agree with them. So IMO, this action is either malicious prosecution, seditious conspiracy or both.

Bob Bennett is a New York-based writer who has written op-eds for the Wall Street Journal and the NY Post, and has appeared on Fox and Friends and America’s Newsroom. He has traveled widely and written travel pieces for the NY Post, a cover article for the Jewish Press, and an op-ed for the medical journal Cancer Biotherapy & Radioimmunotherapy. Bob was also award-winning producer of a travel radio show heard on New York stations: WMCA, WNWK and 50,000 watt WOR and the national Sky Angel Network. He now blogs on Tea Party Nation, Tea Party Community and Red State Diaries.

Posted by Erik Rush in GUEST COMMENTARY