Cheering For America
I got up this morning and, like millions of other Americans, I turned on the news to see if there were any signs of progress in the negotiations between President Trump and Kim Jong-un.
Those who know me know that I have been a "Cold Warrior" my entire life. I was drawn to Ronald Reagan because he understood that we had to defeat the Soviet Union. I am very skeptical of regimes like China, Iran and North Korea.
But, like most Americans, I am also hoping and praying that the president will be able to get from North Korea what the previous three presidents were unable to accomplish.
It is because those presidents failed to stop North Korea's nuclear program that this president came into office immediately facing nuclear threats from Kim's Stalinist regime. So I want the president to succeed. The alternative is too terrible to imagine.
Meanwhile, something else happened this morning that we should ponder.
Very important leaders on the progressive left got up hoping they would turn on the TV and see that the summit had failed. They hoped to hear that Kim stormed out of the meeting or that Trump made some incredible gaffe, whatever they could conjure up that would derail the summit.
This is how sick much of the political left is. They are actually rooting against America. But how will America be made safer if President Trump fails?
Just what is it that a "President Kamala Harris" or a "President Bernie Sanders" would do to counter what is now a nuclear North Korea? What is their plan?
Does anybody believe it is a coincidence that, while the president is engaged in delicate negotiations with both China and North Korea, House Democrats have scheduled Michael Cohen, an admitted liar, convicted felon and disbarred lawyer, to testify publicly on Capitol Hill today?
What is their purpose? To weaken the president before America's enemies.
How reckless do you have to be to think that this is appropriate conduct? How distorted is your worldview to think that the spectacle of a convicted perjurer testifying before Congress is beneficial for the country?
I hope the American people will see through this charade and realize that this "loyal opposition" is not loyal and cannot be trusted to keep our country safe, whether it is at the border or in foreign affairs.
I'm not going to offer a detailed analysis of Michael Cohen's testimony. How do you analyze the testimony of a habitual liar?
Cohen lied about his personal income taxes over multiple years. He lied to the United States Congress in previous testimony. He was implicated in fraudulent business schemes. In short, he would be laughed out of any courtroom as a potential witness.
But it is telling that the first major witness the new Democrat majority is bringing before us in their effort to get the president is a man who is going to jail because of his own lies! By the way, even CNN says that Cohen lied again during his testimony today.
But here's the one thing Cohen did say that I want to make sure you know about because I suspect Big Media will ignore it:
"Questions have been raised about whether I know of direct evidence that Mr. Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia. I do not. I want to be clear."
House Votes For Open Borders
Yesterday evening, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats rammed through a resolution disapproving President Trump's declaration of a national emergency at the southern border.
The vote 245-to-182. (That's 45 votes short of a veto-proof majority.) Democrats unanimously supported the resolution, and were joined by 13 Republicans. Here are the Republicans who voted to overturn the president's emergency declaration:
Herrera Butler (R-WA)
McMorris Rodgers (R-WA)
Several GOP congressmen attempted to argue that while they supported the president's position on the wall, they could not support an emergency declaration. That makes no sense to me at all.
Do they not believe this is a legitimate emergency?
Caravans of thousands of migrants are routinely marching on our border. Illegal immigration is surging. Criminals, including child sex offenders, are being caught every day. Massive amounts of drugs are coming across the border. Our Border Patrol agents are overwhelmed.
Do they not believe the president has the authority?
As I have noted before, Congress gave him this authority and every president since 1976 has repeatedly used it. There was no "meltdown" then.
I know why the Democrats are freaking out now. They support open borders.
But there is no excuse for any so-called "conservative" who claims to support border security to be making Nancy Pelosi's job any easier!
The resolution now heads to the Senate. Majority Leader McConnell is obligated to bring it to the floor for a vote in the next 18 days. If the resolution passes the Senate, President Trump is promising to veto it. And there is no way Pelosi and Schumer have the votes for an override.
The Constitution & The Cross
The Bladensburg Cross -- a 40-foot monument to World War I heroes -- was on trial today at the Supreme Court. Built by the American Legion, the Cross has stood for 93 years at an intersection in Bladensburg, Maryland, without issue.
That was until a few atheists, emboldened by the Obama Administration's assault on religious liberty, brought it to the attention of the American Humanist Association, which sued five years ago to have the Cross torn down.
After a series of setbacks in lower courts, the Humanist Association eventually prevailed in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Last March, the Fourth Circuit ordered the Cross to be removed.
I want to pause for a moment here to stress, once again, the importance of elections in determining the balance of power on our courts. The men and women we elect as president and U.S. senators nominate and confirm the judges who sit on our federal courts.
When Barack Obama took office, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals had a majority of Republican-appointed judges. Eight years later, it had been flipped to a 10-to-5 Democrat majority. Predictably, left-wing judges saw the 90 year-old Cross as a threat to the Constitution and our republic.
That said, I am cautiously optimistic about oral arguments before the Supreme Court today. Only two justices -- Ginsburg and Sotomayor -- appeared openly hostile to the Bladensburg Cross.
The Constitution does not demand government hostility toward faith. The Supreme Court begins its sessions with the plea, "God save the United States and this honorable court."
A monument honoring veterans from 100 years ago, most of whom undoubtedly were Christians, hardly represents the "establishment of religion" prohibited by the First Amendment.
There are no religious services at the Bladensburg Cross. No one is compelled to bow before it. And its purpose is to serve as a historical monument to war heroes. If the Bladensburg Cross must be destroyed, then hundreds of similar memorials in cemeteries and parks across the country are at risk too.