Jimmy Carter: Media tougher on Trump than any other president in memory

Former President Jimmy Carter says the media have been tougher on President Trump than any other president he can remember.  (REUTERS/Neil Hall, Kevin Lamarque, File)

Jimmy Carter, the liberal 93-year-old former president, surprisingly sided with President Trump when he told The New York Times that the media have been been too hostile on the current commander-in-chief.

“I think the media have been harder on Trump than any other president certainly that I’ve known about,” Carter told The New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd. The 39th president served one term from 1977 to 1981.

Carter added that he thought the media “feel free to claim that Trump is mentally deranged and everything else without hesitation.”
The former president also pushed back on accusations of Russian collusion in the 2016 presidential election, saying: “I don’t think there’s any evidence that what the Russians did changed enough votes, or any votes.” He said his wife, Rosalynn, disagreed with him, before he added, “We voted for [Bernie] Sanders” in the primary.
Carter also doesn’t believe the current president’s “America First” strategy is out of step with the larger world, spoiling international relations. “Well, he might be escalating it but I think that precedes Trump,” he told the Times. “The United States has been the dominant character in the whole world and now we’re not anymore. And we’re not going to be. Russia’s coming back and India and China are coming forward.”
Carter also said he's willing to go to North Korea on a diplomatic mission amid the escalating tensions over nuclear weapons.
“I don’t know what they’ll do,” he said of North Korea. “Because they want to save their regime. And we greatly overestimate China’s influence on North Korea. Particularly to Kim Jong Un. He’s never, so far as I know, been to China.”
He called the North Korean dictator “unpredictable.”
In September, Carter expressed optimism that Trump might break a legislative logjam with his six-month deadline for Congress to address the immigration status of 800,000-plus U.S. residents who were brought to the country illegally as children.
Carter told Emory University students that the “pressures and the publicity that Trump has brought to the immigration issue” could even yield comprehensive immigration law changes that Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama could not muster.
He blamed both major parties for an inability to pass any major immigration law overhaul since a 1986 law signed by President Ronald Reagan.
“I don’t see that as a hopeless cause,” Carter said. He added that Trump’s critics, including himself, “have to give him credit when he does some things that are not as bad” as they are depicted.

Funny Liberal Cartoons

Ahab the Arab (funny Video)

Secy Of State Tillerson Talks With Arab Leaders In Saudi Arabia

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is greeted as he arrives at King Salman Air Base, Saturday, Oct. 21, 2017, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, Pool)

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is in Saudi Arabia on a diplomatic mission, aimed to improve relations in the Middle East, and counter Iran’s influence in the region.
Tillerson arrived at Salman Air Base today to meet with officials from Saudi Arabia and Iraq.
He took part in the Inaugural Coordination Council meeting between the two countries government.
Officials say, Tillerson and Arabian leaders discussed the conflict in Yemen Iran and other regional and bilateral issues.
It’s his first stop on his six day trip, which will also take him to Qatar, Pakistan, India, and Switzerland.

Trump is a great champion of religious liberty -- a welcome change from Obama

“How times have changed. But you know what? Now they’re changing back again, just remember that!” Nothing encapsulates President Trump’s message at the recent Values Voter Summit more than those words.

When the president addressed the summit last weekend in Washington, religious liberty was front and center in his speech. Perhaps more than any other president in recent history, he chose to squarely address the issue and not shy away from the social conservative base.

“In America, we don't worship government – we worship God,” President Trump boldly proclaimed. “We defend our Constitution. We protect religious liberty. We treasure our freedom.”
The president continued: “Religious liberty is enshrined in the very first amendment of the Bill of Rights. And we all pledge allegiance to … one nation under God. This is America’s heritage, a country that never forgets that we are all are – all, every one of us – made by the same God in Heaven.” Indeed. Let us not forget this.
Values Voter Summit attendees were thrilled to see the president promote religious freedom in his speech. But even more significant than his words are his actions – policies that reflect the promises he made during the election campaign.
President Trump mentioned three clear steps he has taken to protect religious liberty domestically. The message to socially conservative voters was clear, and they will not forget it.
· He signed an executive order to ensure the Johnson Amendment does not interfere with the First Amendment and “allow government workers to censor sermons or target our pastors or our ministers or rabbis.” The Johnson amendment, named after then-senator and future president Lyndon Johnson, was made a provision of the U.S. tax code in 1954. It bars most nonprofit organizations, including religious institutions, from endorsing or opposing political candidates.
· His Justice Department issued guidance explaining how religious liberty should be protected.
· He took “action to protect the conscience rights of groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor,” observing that “the Little Sisters of the Poor and other people of faith, they live by a beautiful calling, and we will not let bureaucrats take away that calling or take away their rights.” The nuns challenged an ObamaCare mandate that insurance plans must cover contraception.
True, religious freedom was not as much of a concern domestically until policies from the Obama administration and the courts placed the freedom to live according to our beliefs in the political crosshairs. Historically, politicians made promises to gain the important evangelical vote but rarely delivered with actual policies. The Trump administration is breaking with history and is laboring to keep its commitments.
President Trump went on in his remarks to specifically mention the importance of faith and religion in public life 19 times – not counting references to the idea by other terms. He quoted George Washington in noting “that ‘religion and morality are indispensable’ to America’s happiness, really, prosperity and totally to its success. It is our faith and our values that inspires us to give with charity, to act with courage, and to sacrifice for what we know is right.”
The president observed that the “American Founders invoked our Creator four times in the Declaration of Independence,” and “Benjamin Franklin reminded his colleagues at the Constitutional Convention to begin by bowing their heads in prayer.”
In an era when public prayer and displays of faith are so readily attacked, social conservatives were heartened to hear this reaffirmation of the role religion has played – and is still playing – for the public good of our country.
That the president recognizes the important social role of institutions of faith is a welcome turn from the Obama administration.
The Obama administration irrationally insisted on harassing the Little Sisters of the Poor and other faith-based groups, including threatening them with tens of millions of dollars in fines unless they yielded to the Department of Health and Human Services’ ObamaCare contraception mandate.
Yet the Federal Emergency Management Agency continues to deny disaster assistance to churches simply because they are religious institutions. Work still needs to be done to ensure that our First Amendment and the new Justice Department religious liberty guidance is followed –both with regard to the FEMA policy and in other areas.
One of these other areas is the Middle East. As the president recognized, ISIS has “ruthlessly slaughtered innocent Christians, along with the vicious killing of innocent Muslims and other religious minorities,” and “repressive regimes” must “restore political and religious freedom for their people.”
While a genocide in the Middle East has been recognized, assistance has been slower in coming. Under U.S. policy, Christians are still being funneled through United Nations-run refugee camps in the Middle East. At these camps – as if they were not already traumatized enough by barely escaping genocide – the Christians are regularly subject to violence and mistreatment at the hands of Islamists.
This can change by directing U.S. assistance away from the U.N. and to organizations providing aid directly to these Christian communities. We must do more on this issue. If the government of Hungary can devote financial assistance and a high-level government post to this specific concern, the United States should be able to do so too.
Yes, a lot changed over the last eight years. America went from being a zealous advocate of religious freedom and human rights for all people, to being a promoter of special rights for a few. But you know what?  Now those times are changing back again. We have the ability to promote and protect religious freedom both here and abroad – just remember that!

Air Force could recall up to 1,000 retired pilots after Trump order

The Pentagon says the Air Force is more than 1,500 pilots short of requirements.  (REUTERS/Jonathan Drake)

The Air Force could recall up to 1,000 retired pilots after President Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed at addressing what the Pentagon has described as an "acute shortage of pilots."

The order, which Trump signed Friday, amends an emergency declaration signed by George W. Bush after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks.

Under current law, the Air Force is limited to recalling just 25 pilots. The order signed by Trump temporarily removes that cap for all branches of the military.
A Pentagon spokesman, Navy Cmdr. Gary Ross, said in a statement that the Air Force is currently "short approximately 1,500 pilots of its requirements."
"We anticipate that the Secretary of Defense will delegate the authority to the Secretary of the Air Force to recall up to 1,000 retired pilots for up to 3 years," Ross said. "The pilot supply shortage is a national level challenge that could have adverse effects on all aspects of both the government and commercial aviation sectors for years to come."
In August, Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson confirmed that the service was short 1,555 pilots of its requirements, including 1,211 fighter pilots.
At the time, Wilson announced the Air Force was increasing incentive pay to officers and enlisted crew members for the first time in 18 years. The service also expanded its aviation bonus program to apply to include pilots who were out of contract.

Trump Launches Petition to Stand for National Anthem

President Trump launched a petition to stand for the national anthem.
The president has been a prominent voice in the controversy over NFL players refusing to stand for the anthem to protest racial injustice in America.
Players across the league doubled down by kneeling, locking arms, and sometimes sitting for the anthem after the president called on owners to fire players who did so.
He has called the players' actions "disgraceful" and remarked that seeing military veteran amputees reminded him how important it is to stand for the anthem and respect the military.
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said this week that “everyone should stand for the national anthem” but will not change the league's policy to require players to stand, as the NBA does.

The NFL has decided that it will not force players to stand for the playing of our National Anthem. Total disrespect for our great country!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 18, 2017

Trump's petition is paid for by the Trump Make America Great Again Committee, and is found on the Republican National Committee's website.

Rachel Maddow called out by fellow liberals for pushing anti-Trump conspiracy

A report by Rachel Maddow on a deadly ambush of U.S. troops in Niger this month raised eyebrows  (REUTERS/Chris Keane)

MSNBC star Rachel Maddow’s latest anti-Trump conspiracy theory was so outlandish that even the dependably liberal HuffPost criticized it as "so flimsy that it could be debunked by a quick glance at a map."

On Thursday evening, "The Rachel Maddow Show" opened with a somber 25-minute diatribe that attempted to connect the tragic ambush attack that killed four American soldiers in Niger to the latest version of President Trump’s proposed travel ban, which included the nation of Chad. Maddow essentially claimed that the inclusion of Chad, which recently pulled its troops out of Niger, in the revised travel ban resulted in extremist attacks such as the one that left four Americans dead.

The HuffPost, which is so anti-Trump that it refused to even cover him in the political section during the early stages of his campaign, published a story headlined, "What the hell was this Rachel Maddow segment?" The MSNBC host proclaimed that Chad’s pullout from Niger "had an immediate effect in emboldening ISIS attacks," but the HuffPost easily shot down her theory.
Colby College Department of Government assistant professor Laura Seay told the HuffPost that "any expert" would have said Maddow's conspiracy theory was "crazy" and the pullout of Chadian troops isn’t necessarily related to the Trump’s travel ban.
"Everybody that I know is appalled by this. I would like to think that Maddow's researchers are more responsible," Seay told the HuffPost.

U.S. Special Forces Sgt. Dustin Wright, left, and U.S. Special Forces Sgt. La David Johnson were killed in Niger Oct. 4.  (U.S. Army Special Operations Command)

While the MSNBC host called the tragic attack on American troops "absolutely baffling," Seay said it was actually "almost inevitable," because it's such a remote and hostile area.
"The attacks that have increased can be traced back to militant group Boko Haram, which is based just across the border in Nigeria," the HuffPost reported, citing the Council on Foreign Relations and accounts from local residents.
"The Rachel Maddow Show" declined to comment to HuffPost but the host addressed the situation on Friday night’s episode.

U.S. Army Special Forces Sergeant Jeremiah Johnson, left, and U.S. Special Forces Sgt. Bryan Black were killed in Niger Oct. 4  (U.S. Army Special Operations Command)

"Over the course of the day today, lots of people have been very upset with me for reporting that last night, which is fine. I didn’t know you cared. But the upset over my reporting doesn’t mean that anything I reported wasn’t true," Maddow said. "Everything I reported was true."
Maddow continued: "Now, this doesn’t mean that Chad withdrawing their troops was necessarily the cause of what happened to those U.S. troops who were ambushed. That ambush is being described by the Pentagon as a shock."
The HuffPost’s Willa Frej wrote that Maddow built "myths" using unrelated or unreliable information and "reduced the story so thoroughly that it lost any semblance of the larger truth."
Maddow has seen increased viewership as the triggered left tunes in to watch her condemn Trump on a nightly basis, butit seems the MSNBC host this time went too far for one of the most liberal publications in America.

Political I didn't Do It Cartoons

Gregg Jarrett: Lynch, the Clintons and a series of fantastic coincidences

I don’t believe in coincidences. Not when it comes to crimes. Especially when they involve political corruption.  

No such thing as a coincidence.  Doesn’t exist.  

Yet, we are led to believe it was merely a coincidence that Bill Clinton just happened to be on the tarmac of an Arizona airport at the same time as then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch.  We are supposed to accept that their private meeting on board Lynch’s plane had nothing whatsoever to do with the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton which the A-G was overseeing at the time. 

Right.  They just “schmoozed” about grandkids and what-not.
I guess it was also just a coincidence that a few days after the furtive tarmac meeting the decision was announced that criminal charges against Clinton, the Democratic nominee for president, would not be filed, notwithstanding compelling evidence that she repeatedly violated the Espionage Act by storing highly classified documents on her private, unauthorized and unsecured email server in the basement of her home.
Sure. Makes perfect sense. To a naïve, gullible fool.
Maybe it was purely a coincidence that there was another FBI investigation going on involving Russia’s corruption-fueled purchase of U.S uranium assets and which also happened to implicate the Clintons, but was kept hidden from Congress and the American people by Lynch and her predecessor, Eric Holder. Hmm…
And perhaps it was simply an odd coincidence that the investigation of this uranium bribery, extortion, money laundering and kickback case was supervised by then-FBI Director Robert Mueller, his successor James Comey, and then-U.S Attorney Rod Rosenstein, all of whom appear to have covered it up but are now directly involved in the Trump-Russia probe.
Strange confluence of people and events, eh?
I don’t buy any of it. Not for one minute. And not entirely because I don’t believe in coincidences. It is because all the above-mentioned people are known to trifle with the law or ignore disqualifying conflicts of interest. They seem to be without principles --devoid of the kind of scruples that should guide people in service of our government.
Mueller is serving as special counsel in the Trump-Russia case.  He reports to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein who appointed him.
Yet both Rosenstein and fired FBI Director James Comey are witnesses in the case, since Rosenstein recommended to President Trump that Comey be fired.
It is well established that Comey and Mueller are long-time friends, allies and former partners. How can Mueller be fair and impartial given these glaring conflicts of interest? He cannot. And he should recuse himself. Rosenstein should also step aside in overseeing the case. He cannot be prosecutor and witness simultaneously. 
Their conflicts are compounded by recent reports that all three men were involved in the Russian uranium case which was kept hidden from Congress. How can Americans have confidence in the outcome of the Trump-Russia case if they engaged in a cover-up of the Clinton-Russia case? 
Which brings us to Hillary and Bill. The Clinton name is synonymous with scandal. The sleazy Whitewater land deals, an illicit affair with a young White House intern that led to impeachment, deceptions following the Benghazi murders, Travelgate, cattle futures, suspected slush funds, evidence of perjury, the list is seemingly endless.
Through it all, the ability of the Clintons to evade indictments would make Houdini proud. They are escape artists of the highest order.
Loretta Lynch should never have presided over the Hillary Clinton email case. She owed her career to none other than Bill Clinton who nominated her to serve as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York which nicely positioned her for elevation to Attorney General a few years later.
She should have recused herself from the Hillary probe from the outset, but did not. Only when the ethically-challenged tarmac meeting took place did she step aside. Belatedly. Supposedly. I have my doubts.
On Friday, Lynch met behind closed doors with the House Intelligence Committee. Too bad the public was deprived of witnessing an attempt to elicit the truth. But secrecy is endemic in Washington, which is precisely why it is so easy to obscure the truth when power corrupts.
Lynch was likely asked to explain the full content of the infamous tarmac conversation with Bill Clinton that lasted approximately 30 minutes. Did Clinton remind Lynch of how much she owed him?  Are we to believe that he never broached the potential indictment of his wife with the very person who could decide her fate?
It is likely Lynch was asked by the Intel Committee if she ever directed Comey to mischaracterize the Clinton email case as a “matter” instead of what it truly was, a criminal investigation. Was Lynch downplaying the case because she planned to scuttle any criminal charges? Did she assure anyone in the Clinton orbit that prosecution would never happen, incriminating evidence be damned?
Finally, why did Lynch allow Comey to usurp the power of the Attorney General in announcing that no criminal charges would be forthcoming against Clinton? It was bad enough that Comey misinterpreted the law on “intent” and “gross negligence,” but Lynch appears to have allowed her office to acquiesce in Comey’s decision. Why?
Since Friday’s hearing was secretive, we may never learn the answers to serious questions that appear to involve lawlessness and rampant corruption.
Instead, we are left to wonder whether it was all just a confluence of fantastic coincidences.