Tag: Dem Hypocrisy

The Jessie Liu clue: A D.C. cover-up that IS Spygate


A lengthy yet stupendous article written by J.E. Dyer exposes the hypocrisy of the lying Dems when it comes to criminal justice and the U.S. Constitution. The Dems feign (cough Pelosi) love of the rule of law except or unless that law applies to Dem/Leftist/Deep State law violations. READ ON!

 

JRH 2/14/20

Your generosity is always appreciated – various credit, check 

& debit cards are accepted by my PayPal account: 

Please Support NCCR

Or support by getting in the Coffee from home business – 

OR just buy some FEEL GOOD coffee.

 

BLOG EDITOR: I’ve apparently been placed in restricted Facebook Jail! The restriction was relegated after criticizing Democrats for supporting abortion in one post and criticizing Virginia Dems for gun-grabbing legislation and levying protester restrictions. Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me completely. Conservatives are a huge portion of Facebook. If more or all Conservatives are banned, it will affect the Facebook advertising revenue paradigm. SO FIGHT CENSORSHIP BY SHARE – SHARE – SHARE!!! Facebook notified me in pop-up on 1/20/20: “You’re temporarily restricted from joining and posting to groups that you do not manage until April 18 at 7:04 PM.”

***************************

The Jessie Liu clue: A D.C. cover-up that IS Spygate

 

By J.E. Dyer

February 13, 2020

Liberty Unyielding

 

The “Old” (Eisenhower) Executive Office Building across from the White House in Washington, D.C.. (Image: Wikimedia)

 

Four federal prosecutors resigned from their case on Tuesday when Attorney General William Barr overruled the sentencing recommendation they made for Roger Stone, whom Robert Mueller had forwarded charges against involving “five separate counts of lying to the House Intelligence Committee and two charges of obstructing a congressional investigation and intimidating a witness.”

 

Notably, the Justice Department’s lead counsel in the Stone case, Jessie Liu – the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia – had recently turned over that role to Timothy Shea, because Ms. Liu had been nominated for a post at the U.S. Treasury.  Liu was also the lead counsel for some time on the Michael Flynn case.

 

On Tuesday, Trump withdrew the Liu nomination for the Treasury job, about the same time the four prosecutors, three of whom were members of the Mueller team, announced they were off the Stone case.  Liu was previously scheduled for a Senate hearing on Thursday.

 

Jessie Liu – center on MSNBC – MSNBC video (screen capture)

 

In the interest of getting expeditiously to the meat of this post, I won’t rehash the whole story on this.  It can be gleaned at the links.  One thing is important to note, however, as we survey what looks very much like a major maneuver of some kind between the “swamp” and the Trump administration.

 

According to a DOJ source, the four prosecutors who left the Stone case on Tuesday changed their sentencing recommendation between the time they briefed it to the Department and their formal filing with the court.  The clear implication is that they told their bosses one thing, but then filed with the court for another.  The sentence they recommended – seven to nine years – was well outside the sentencing guidelines for the offenses, and the DOJ (according to the source) had not seen or approved it.  Rather, the DOJ thought the recommendation would be a different one.

 

At this initial stage, readers should draw their own conclusions about who is telling the truth here.  There is reason, at least, to believe that the formal sentencing recommendation was made without approval from the DOJ higher-ups.

 

That would be enough reason for the four prosecutors to be off the case.  But Jessie Liu wasn’t involved in the sentencing recommendation, so that incident, in itself, doesn’t explain why her nomination was withdrawn.

 

Enter the March 2017 handoff

 

This section of the analysis is what we might call a wholly-owned subsidiary of sundance at Conservative Treehouse, to whom the credit goes for the superb sleuthing that revealed a bottom line I’m going to state up-front.  It is fully developed by sundance, and for the essential background and documentation, please read the CTH article.

 

The bottom line is that some media outlets have had a complete copy of at least the first FISA application on Carter Page since March of 2017, when Senate Intelligence Committee official James Wolfe leaked it to four journalists, including his girlfriend Ali Watkins.  This is recorded in documents from James Wolfe’s prosecution, which were unsealed in 2018.

 

CTH points out what that means: that outlets like the New York Times, where Watkins later took a job, have known what was in the FISA application since shortly after the compromising handover by James Wolfe took place.  The date was 17 March 2017, two months after Trump took office, and long before the FISA applications were made available in redacted form to the public.

 

James A. Wolfe. (Image: Fox News, LinkedIn)

 

Moreover, Senator Mark Warner, the ranking member on the Senate Intelligence Committee, may have known about the compromise at the time it happened.

 

And Jessie Liu was the prosecutor who eventually accepted a plea from James Wolfe to a minimal charge, and effectively swept this bombshell leak of incendiary Top Secret material under the rug.  As pointed out at CTH, a core motive for this was the determination of Wolfe’s defense to call witnesses who would almost certainly have revealed that members of the Senate knew what Wolfe was doing.

 

Sundance calls this the “DC cover-up that’s as big as Spygate.”  Key aspects must be noted in that regard; e.g., that there are media outlets that must therefore be complicit in selling the pubic a bill of goods on the “FISA applications” narrative.  They’ve known all along what those applications contained, yet published as if they didn’t: not to protect national secrets, but to support a narrative that injured real people – through harassment and manufactured prosecutions – based on falsehoods that the FISA applications expose.

 

Sundance also makes a sound case that Mark Warner, and probably others, knew as well; not only what was in the FISA applications (which Warner had to know, having been authorized to read them unredacted in the SCIF), but that the FISA applications had been leaked to the media.

 

Again, it is certain that at least one of the first two FISA applications (from October 2016 and January 2017) constituted the material leaked.  A sentencing document filed by the DOJ in December 2018 makes that clear.  It may have been only the first application that was leaked; I discuss that below.

 

This is undoubtedly enough of a compromising situation for some in the Senate to not want it coming out in a confirmation hearing for Jessie Liu.  Sundance prepared some good, suggested questions for the now-canceled hearing.  But I doubt members of the Senate would really want the answers coming out in public – or even just the implications raised by the questions.

 

This was Spygate

 

I would go further than sundance, meanwhile, and say that this cover-up isn’t merely as big as Spygate.  It is Spygate.  It was part and parcel of the effort to gain advantage over Trump and take him down, an effort that started before he was even elected, and one whose full panoply of methods we still haven’t grasped.

 

To lay it out, I’ll start by noting something that hadn’t clicked into place with me until sundance highlighted it in the post linked above.  I had followed the James Wolfe case, knew about Jessie Liu’s role, and even understood that the classified material involved – i.e., leaked by Wolfe –  was related to the FISA applications.

 

But it hadn’t registered meaningfully with me that Wolfe leaked the material on 17 March 2017.

 

Recognizing the significance of that specific date makes the difference in how we see the event and its motivation.  Why?  Because during that period, Devin Nunes was working on a set of requests for the executive agencies which included FISA applications, and information about “unmasking” actions taken by federal authorities.

 

Devin Nunes (Image: Screen grab of Fox News video, YouTube)

 

Nunes had sent a demand – disclosed to the Washington Post on 15 March – to the NSA, CIA, and FBI for information from them on whose names had been “unmasked” from incidental (non-targeted) electronic surveillance, in the period of the Trump transition (and probably some additional time on either side of it).

 

But he also sent a separate request to the Justice Department specifically for FISA applications.

 

In February 2018, the Lawfare blog posted a handy (if hostile) timeline of Nunes’s efforts to figure out what was going on with the unmasking.  Most Spygate followers will chiefly remember Nunes’s dramatic press conferences later in March of 2017.

 

But he had gained sharpened awareness of the unmasking as an issue when it became clear, with the David Ignatius article in the Washington Post on 11 January 2017, that Michael Flynn had been unmasked in a phone call with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

 

Nunes fully understood the relationship between FISA-authorized surveillance and unmasking.  And he knew that it would be necessary to look into the records on both aspects of intelligence processing to determine what had been going on.

 

VIDEO: Devin Nunes: Trump Communications ‘Incidentally’ Collected By Intelligence Agencies | NBC News

 

 [Posted by NBC News

1.84M subscribers – Mar 22, 2017

 

Devin Nunes, the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee tells press he has been notified that Trump team communications have been “incidentally,” legally collected. He also said more names involved in Trump campaign have been unmasked but … MORE TO READ]

 

After President Trump sent his famous 4 March 2017 tweets about having been “wiretapped” by Obama, Nunes and Adam Schiff, the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, sent a letter to the acting attorney general (Dana Boente) requesting “copies of any applications the Justice Department submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, any orders that the court released, and any copies of warrants issued by federal judges or magistrates regarding Trump, his campaign surrogates, business associates, employees, family and friends.”  The timeframe requested was the year 2016.

 

That letter was sent 8 March 2017.  And note this about it: whatever your opinion of Devin Nunes, one thing no one would say of him is that he was complicit with either anti-Trump media or anti-Trump officials (i.e., “deep staters”) inside the government.

 

Thus, his letter of 8 March would have been the first communication from such a person – an official outside the anti-Trump circle – posing formal questions, to which the Carter Page FISA applications had to be the answer.

 

In other words, Nunes was taking aim at the real target.  (Something I noted at the time; see my link on his 22 March 2017 press conference, above.)

 

Don’t get ahead of me here, because understanding this as a Spygate episode requires seeing it whole.  Nunes and Schiff gave the DOJ a deadline of 13 March to respond.  On 13 March, the DOJ requested more time.  Nunes’s office told the media that if there was no response before FBI Director James Comey testified to the House committee the following Monday (20 March), Nunes would request the information during Comey’s hearing, and would subpoena it if necessary.

 

On 17 March, the day the FISA applications were made available in the SCIF on Capitol Hill, Nunes then provided this very informative statement to the media: “The Committee is satisfied that the Department of Justice has fully complied with our request for information from our March 8 letter on possible surveillance related to Donald Trump or his associates.”

 

That statement comports perfectly with what we would expect if the DOJ had forwarded copies of its 2016 applications made to the FISA court, including the Carter Page application.

 

Note two things.  One, fulfilling this request from Nunes and Schiff would have been the reason the Carter Page FISA application was sent to the Hill on 17 March 2017.

 

Mark Warner and the Senate Intelligence staff would have known the request had been made – and known that the documents were coming on the 17th – because Warner was in the Intelligence Gang of Eight, and Schiff would have shared it with him, at a minimum.

 

Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) – Youtube (screen capture)

 

Two, only the first Carter Page application, from October 2016, would have met the terms of the House Intelligence Committee request, which was for applications made in 2016.

 

That’s why I think it’s probable that only the first FISA application was leaked to the media on 17 March 2017.

 

A decision point, identified

 

But of more importance is the point that Nunes was the catalyst for shaking it out of the DOJ.  That means that at the time the FISA application was leaked, and indeed for at least a couple of weeks before, some group of Deep Staters was closely attuned already to the significance of Nunes’s role and what he was trying to do.  They knew he was on the hunt for a trail of activity that would lead back to them.

 

The interval between 13 and 17 March is thus an intriguing one.  The DOJ asked for more time on 13 March, but apparently without previewing anything it was committing to.  By 17 March, it had delivered the Carter Page FISA application, along with the others from 2016.

 

That tells me a decision was made between 13 and 17 March to deploy the Carter Page application rather than trying to keep it under wraps.  The method of deployment was sending it to Capitol Hill.

 

This would constitute circumstantial evidence of the collusion that sundance postulates, presumably involving actors other than James Wolfe on Capitol Hill – and suggesting cooperation with the Justice Department, which sent the FISA application, and the media, whose members received the leak from Wolfe.

 

On Tuesday 21 March, the day after Comey’s 20 March hearing, Nunes made his famous visit to the White House complex and viewed material on the unmasking of U.S. persons, an inspection arranged for him by officials inside the White House.  The next day, 22 March, Nunes briefed his concerns to the media, setting off a firestorm.

 

There were other events in the ensuing timeline; read them at your leisure.  I’ll skip ahead to the one on 30 March, when as Lawfare recounts, “The New York Times reports that Ezra Cohen-Watnick, the National Security Council’s senior director for intelligence, and Michael Ellis, a lawyer in the White House counsel’s office working on national security issues, provided Nunes the intelligence documents he referenced in his March 22 press conference.”

 

The events highlighted above, including that last one, are the ones that matter.

 

The Nunes events make this Spygate

 

The date 17 March 2017 was not happenstance.  Because Devin Nunes was probing for information about surveillance of the Trump team, there were quite a few people on Capitol Hill – and in the media – who would be motivated to set a counter-operation in motion at the first opportunity.

 

It’s easy to identify 17 March 2017 as that opportunity, because that’s the date stamped on the “official copy” of the Carter Page FISA application that made its way to the Hill.

 

But can we find the outlines of a Deep State/anti-Trump plan here?  Can we justify thinking in terms of collusion, and supposing that multiple people were involved in taking advantage of that opportunity?

 

There are strong reasons to say yes.  They relate to two circumstances.  One is the 30 March New York Times article identifying two individuals as Devin Nunes’s contacts in the White House.

 

The other is the very first event in the Lawfare timeline: 11 November 2016, when Nunes was appointed as an adviser to the Trump transition team.

 

Trump-transition-Trump-Tower – AFP video, YouTube (screen capture)

 

That means Nunes himself had been subject to being dragnetted in the Carter Page surveillance, by the two-hop rule, since 11 November 2016.

 

Nunes probably wasn’t the only one on Capitol Hill, for that matter.  But once he was seriously on the hunt for FISA and unmasking information – which would lead to the activity trail of the anti-Trump surveillance – the motive to keep him under surveillance would have been exceptionally strong.  He met that definition by mid-February 2017 at the latest.

 

Remember, it’s not “wiretapping” we’re talking about.  It’s not listening in on phone calls.  The method would have been retrieving “non-contents” information from telecom providers, using tailored queries that met the criteria authorized by the Carter Page FISA warrant.  That kind of surveillance, covering phone calls, texts, and other instant messages, could be done without the subject or anyone connected with him ever knowing.

 

If Deep State planners were tracking Nunes, they had not only the motive to drop the Carter Page FISA application to the Hill, and thence to the media, on 17 March 2017, but the means to foresee that Nunes’s contacts with the White House would lead very soon to his being afforded a look at what had been going on there.  They were alerted, in other words, to the danger to themselves, in time to take planned and deliberate advantage of the FISA application’s arrival on Capitol Hill.

 

Tracking Nunes (and probably the other two individuals named by the New York Times) was also a likely and accurate way to identify Nunes’s White House contacts(s).  It had the merit of not requiring an initial cue from a source who actually witnessed the interactions.  Knowing whom Nunes had been in contact with, his monitors could then ask intelligent questions of White House leakers who had only incidental awareness of what others in their vicinity were doing.

 

Pulling Liu’s nomination

 

If I were Trump and Barr, and had assembled information pointing in essence to a scenario like this – or were still in the process of assembling it – I wouldn’t want the Jessie Liu confirmation hearing to trip landmines before their time.

 

Trump wouldn’t withdraw the Liu nomination merely out of misplaced compassion for embarrassed senators or Deep Staters.  He’d have good reasons to do it for his own purposes (with or without a dramatic event like the four prosecutors’ departure).

 

One of those reasons would be that Jessie Liu probably doesn’t belong in the job at Treasury.  Whatever else she knew about James Wolfe and the Senate Intelligence Committee in the March 2017 timeframe, she knew that the classified material Wolfe leaked to the media was the Carter Page FISA application.  She was apparently willing to cooperate in keeping that explosive information out of the public eye.

 

It may be that Liu was less culpably complicit than willing to go along, on the sidelines of an ambiguous situation, under pressure from higher echelon.  We needn’t have a bloodthirsty attitude about Liu, per se.

 

But here’s what we do need to have: an accounting to the American people, before even one more official involved in very questionable actions by the government gets another pass.

 

The people have trusted the system in the blind long enough.  No reckoning – no happy-face career progression for the known participants.  If you want to object, go sell it to Michael Flynn and his family. (Or sell it to Roger Stone. DOJ let James Wolfe off with a two-month sentence.)

 

An additional reason for pulling the Liu nomination is simply that it may not be time to detonate the landmine yet.  John Durham is doing his job.  He, Barr, and Trump will know when it’s time.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

BLOG EDITOR: I’ve apparently been placed in restricted Facebook Jail! The restriction was relegated after criticizing Democrats for supporting abortion in one post and criticizing Virginia Dems for gun-grabbing legislation and levying protester restrictions. Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me completely. Conservatives are a huge portion of Facebook. If more or all Conservatives are banned, it will affect the Facebook advertising revenue paradigm. SO FIGHT CENSORSHIP BY SHARE – SHARE – SHARE!!! Facebook notified me in pop-up on 1/20/20: “You’re temporarily restricted from joining and posting to groups that you do not manage until April 18 at 7:04 PM.”

____________________________

J.E. Dyer is a retired Naval Intelligence officer who lives in Southern California, blogging as The Optimistic Conservative for domestic tranquility and world peace. Her articles have appeared at Hot Air, Commentary’s Contentions, Patheos, The Daily Caller, The Jewish Press, and The Weekly Standard.

 

Copyright © 2020 Liberty Unyielding. All rights reserved.

 

Actual Whistleblower Exposes Epstein-MSM Coverup


John R. Houk

© November 9, 2019

 

There is a meme going around the in which any subject is spoken of BUT a phrase culminates every subject: “And Epstein didn’t kill himself!”

 

VIDEO: a totally ordinary meme compilation

 

Unless you are a Democrat YOU Epstein didn’t kill himself. Even the Deep State knows BUT doesn’t want you to know that Epstein DID NOT FREAKING KILL HIMSELF.

 

Why would Dems, the Deep State and the MSM Dem-propaganda machine not want you to know Epstein didn’t kill himself? HMMM….

 

VIDEO: Leaked ABC News Insider Recording EXPOSES #EpsteinCoverup “We had Clinton, We had Everything”

 

 

Posted by Project Veritas

427K subscribers – Nov 5, 2019

 

BECOME AN UNDERCOVER JOURNALIST: https://www.projectveritas.com/journalist-application/

 

  • “I’ve Had This Story for Three Years… (ABC) Would Not Put It on The Air” says Good Morning America Breaking News Anchor, and 20/20 Co-Anchor Amy Robach. “It Was Unbelievable… We Had – Clinton, We Had Everything…”

 

  • Robach: “We Had Her Whole Allegations About Prince Andrew…I Got a Little Concerned About Why I Couldn’t Get On.”

 

  • Amy Robach Describes How She Interviewed a Woman Who Had the Courage to Come Forward “Years” Ago About Epstein: “She Had Pictures, She Had Everything. She Was in Hiding for Twelve Years. We Convinced Her to Come Out. We Convinced Her to Talk to Us.”

 

  • Robach Details ABC’s Initial Response to Her: “Who’s Jeffrey Epstein? No One Knows Who That is. This is a Stupid Story

 

  • Robach: “Now it’s All Coming Out … I Freaking Had All Of It…”

 

(New York, NY) Newly revealed footage leaked by an ABC insider has exposed how network executives rejected allegations against Jeffrey Epstein years ago, even though there was content regarding the merit of those claims in-hand.

 

Amy Robach, ‘Good Morning America’ Co-Host and Breaking News Anchor at ABC, explains how a witness came forward years ago with information pertaining to Epstein, but Disney-owned ABC News refused to air the material for years. Robach vents her anger in a “hot mic” moment with an off-camera producer, explaining that ABC quashed the story in it’s [sic] early stages. “I’ve had this interview with Virginia Roberts (Now Virginia Guiffre) [alleged Epstein victim]. We would not put it on the air. Um, first of all, I was told “Who’s Jeffrey Epstein. No one knows who that is. This is a stupid story.”

 

She continues, “The Palace found out that we had her whole allegations about Prince Andrew and threatened us a million different ways.”

 

Robach goes on to express she believes that Epstein was killed in prison saying, “So do I think he was killed? 100% Yes, I do…He made his whole living blackmailing people… Yup, there were a lot of men in those planes. A lot of men who visited that Island, a lot of powerful men who came into … MORE TO READ

 

ABC STILL has not ran the Robach story AND is making excuses for not doing so.

 

I am about to cross post several sources focusing on the Whistleblower who exposed the ABC News coverup. BUT just an aside … TAKE NOTE this is an actual Whistleblower exposing the wrong doing of actual crimes and the coverup protecting very powerful – cough: primarily Left-Wing Dems – associated with a serial pedophile/sex trafficker. Wholly UNLIKE the Dem-Deep State conspirator(s) Whistleblower (likely Eric Ciaramella) fabricating lies peddled as crimes to take out a sitting President hated by the Dems for stalling the Dem agenda to transform America into a de-Christianized all-powerful State controlled society.

I’m a bit amazed the name of the Epstein-coverup Whistleblower hasn’t been revealed. ACBS employee who once worked for ABC was recently fired because some CBS mucky-mucks thought was the Whistleblower exposing a MSM coverup for Epstein, Dems & other global powerful figures. As you will read CBS venom may have been misguided.

 

BUT isn’t it interesting the Dems & MSM are worked up about trying to protect the identity of a false accuser (again – probably Ciaramella) yet seek to fire an actual Whistleblower exposing MSM coverups of pedophile/sex trafficking crimes?

 

And now –  interesting source info. It’s a bit lengthy ergo you might wish to bookmark and read in parts.

 

JRH 11/9/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

Support this Blog HERE. Or support by getting in 

the Coffee from home business – OR just buy some healthy coffee.

Blog Editor: Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you belong to.

*****************************

CBS Just Fired Employee Who Blew Whistle on Epstein Cover-Up at ABC News

 

Whistleblower Silhouette, Epstein & Amy Robach

 

By Emma Fiala

November 7, 2019

Activist Post

 

On Tuesday, Project Veritas exposed video of ABC’s Amy Robach admitting that the Disney-owned network had witness testimony pertaining to the Epstein scandal three years ago but refused to air it.

 

Robach was recorded discussing what transpired on a “hot mic” while on set, saying:

 

“I’ve had this interview with Virginia Roberts. We would not put it on the air.”

 

Excuses ranged from being threatened “a million different ways” by “the Palace” after the royal family somehow got wind that the network had allegations from Virginia Roberts Giuffre against Prince Andrew, to a fear that ABC may no longer “be able to interview Kate and Will.”

 

As if the revelations that a major U.S. network hid potential evidence and information related to one of the most shocking scandals in history, it has now come out that the person responsible for this leak has been fired.

 

Not only has no one responsible for burying this incredibly important story been fired, held accountable, punished, or publicly named, an entirely different mainstream network has now fired the employee that formerly worked for ABC News and who possibly leaked the Robach recording to Project Veritas.

 

According to journalist Yashar Ali, “CBS News has fired the staffer in question.”

 

“This comes after ABC informed CBS that they had determined who accessed the footage of Amy Robach expressing her frustrations about the Epstein story.”

 

The events that have transpired as a result of this leaked video bring about a host of new questions and highlights the extreme level of hypocrisy that exists in U.S. mainstream media.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps a wrongful termination suit is in the works. But if this former ABC News turned former CBS News employee signed a non-disclosure agreement, it’s possible this situation is becoming more messy than they expected.

 

Despite that, kudos are due to whoever leaked this important hot mic recording because—unlike the example we may glean from mainstream media—it is never okay to cover for a pedophile, and helping to expose an elite pedophile network is a fine reason to put yourself on the line.

 

And maybe, just maybe….

 

 

What the full video from Project Veritas below:

 

[Blog Editor: Same as above]

 

Activist Post acquired from: By Emma Fiala | Creative Commons | TheMindUnleashed.com

++++++++++++++++++++

Project Veritas Says Jeffrey Epstein Whistleblower Still Working At ABC

 

By Bronson Stocking

 Nov 08, 2019 7:29 PM

Townhall.com

 

Amy Robach-Project Veritas Screen Capture

 

Matt Vespa has been covering the debacle over at CBS and ABC regarding a video clip released by Project Veritas. CBS News recently fired a producer because they thought the producer was responsible for leaking a video clip of ABC News anchor Amy Robach to Project Veritas. The off-air clip shows the ABC News anchor expressing frustration about the network spiking her story on alleged child predator Jeffrey Epstein. In the clip, Robach complains that she “had everything” on Jeffrey Epstein and says she tried for 3 years to get ABC to run the story.

 

Earlier today, Megyn Kelly released an exclusive interview with the former producer, Ashley Bianco, who CBS fired under the belief that she had made the clip while working for ABC News and then sent the video to Project Veritas. In the interview, Bianco tells Megyn Kelly that she did in fact clip the video that was leaked to Project Veritas, but she denied sending the clip to anybody. Bianco says she had never even heard of Project Veritas before her firing from CBS and says it’s common for producers at ABC to clip videos of off-air moments.

 

After Bianco’s interview with Megyn Kelly, James O’Keefe of Project Veritas stated that his source for the off-air video is still working at ABC News, and O’Keefe released a statement made by that source addressing the “wrongfully accused” and defending his or her decision to leak the video.

 

“It is terrible that you have been lashed out at by the company,” the statement reads. “I know some may put the burden of guilt on me, but my conscience is clear. The actions of the company towards you are the result of their own and not anyone else.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

+++++++++++++++++++++

ABC Insider: Why I, alone, released the Amy Robach Epstein tape.

 

By Eric Spracklen

November 8, 2019

Project Veritas

 

Editors Note: Project Veritas is publishing the writing below at the request of the ABC news insider who gave us the Amy Robach tape.

 

This was submitted to us in light of the actions taken against those wrongfully identified as involved in the leaking of the tape and the reactions of ABC news to their spiking of the story on Jeffrey Epstein.

 

By Ignotus,

 

To my fellow man:

 

I came forward with this information bearing no motives other than to have this information public. I did not and do not seek any personal gain from this information whether it be financial or otherwise and will always decline. When I became aware of this moment, I had the same reaction as many of you did. Anger, confusion and sadness. I care not about petty political quarrels and only hope for the best in all of us.

 

To my fellow ABC News employees:

 

I’ve walked the halls experiencing similar feelings we are all having right now. All of you regardless of your own personal differences in one form or another do an outstanding job. I sincerely enjoy working with each and every one of you and will continue to do so throughout our careers.

 

To those wrongfully accused:

 

It is terrible that you have been lashed out at by the company. I know some may put the burden of guilt on me, but my conscience is clear. The actions of the company towards you are the result of their own and not anyone else. The public outcry, from coast to coast, of all people, creeds, and political affiliations, is clear. I have not one doubt that there will always be support for you, and you will have prosperous careers. For neither you, nor I, have done anything wrong.

 

To Amy Robach:

 

You are the only person deserving of an apology. I am most certainly sorry. Not for my actions or for this to center around you, but for what is clear to have happened. When I first stumbled across this, my initial reaction was outrage. But this soon turned towards empathy. I can not imagine doing all the hard work to only have it shelved. If the past few years have taught us anything, it is the truth that some of us have endured many hardships in this industry. From the spiking of stories regarding prominent and powerful people in this world, and to yours. I believe you are an outstanding reporter and have done such tremendous work in the community as well.

 

To ABC News:

 

I sit right here with you all in complete shock. I, like many, are at a loss for words on how this has been handled. Instead of addressing this head-on like the company has in the past, it has spun into a mission of seek-and-destroy. Innocent people that have absolutely nothing to do with this are being hunted down as if we are all a sport. I challenge all of you to actually look inwards and remember why this company engages in journalism. We all hold the First Amendment at the foundation of this company, yet forget its history,  its purpose, and its reasoning for even coming into existence to begin with. How lost we are… yearning to be found. I went to Project Veritas for the sole reason that any other media outlet else would have probably shelved this as well. I thank all of them, and James, for seeking truth.

 

We are all human and mortal, creatures of mistakes and redemption.

The road to redemption favors no soul.

 

Sincerely,

Ignotus

+++++++++++++++++++

ABC Keeps Covering for Jeffrey Epstein

 

By David Harsanyi

November 08, 2019

The Daily Signal

 

Jeffrey Epstein – Getty Image

 

This week, James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas, a group that has often infiltrated news organizations to uncover liberal bias, released an explosive “hot mic” video of “Good Morning America” co-host Amy Robach venting about ABC’s decision to spike a story about late serial sex predator Jeffrey Epstein’s nefarious activities three years ago.

 

“I had this interview with [Epstein victim] Virginia Roberts,” Robach is seen saying in the video, “we would not put it on the air. The [British Royal] Palace found out that we had her whole allegations about Prince Andrew and threatened us a million different ways. We were afraid we wouldn’t be able to interview Kate and Will that we, that also quashed the story.”

 

Robach now claims, through a network statement, that she was caught “in a private moment” of frustration over the lack of progress on a story. “I was upset that an important interview I had conducted with Virginia Roberts didn’t air because I could not obtain sufficient corroborating evidence to meet ABC’s editorial standards about her allegations.”

 

Sorry, but Robach’s response to the firestorm doesn’t square with her initial comments, in which she states that “Roberts had pictures, she had everything … it was unbelievable what we had. [Bill] Clinton, we had everything.”

 

“Everything” sure sounds like sufficient corroborating evidence for any news organization. Even if employing the most scrupulous journalistic standards, a major outlet like ABC wouldn’t need three years to substantiate—or dismiss—a story that features pictures, dates, and a credible witness.

 

We certainly know that ABC didn’t need “everything”—or very much of anything, for that matter—when it was running scores of pieces online and on television, highlighting every risible accusation against then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

 

I’m not even talking about the prime accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, whose allegations still haven’t been corroborated, but rather about someone such as Julie Swetnick, who was all over ABC News at the height of the confirmation battle.

 

Swetnick accused Kavanaugh not only of sexual assault but also of being present at parties where women were being drugged and “gang raped.” She wasn’t remotely credible.

 

Was Robach’s colleague, former Clinton adviser George Stephanopoulos, meeting ABC’s editorial standards when he allowed Swetnick’s shyster lawyer Michael Avenatti to smear Kavanaugh without offering a shred of substantiating evidence for her claims? Why couldn’t Roberts be similarly interviewed?

 

Robach contends in the hot-mic video that producers told her they spiked the story because no one knew, or cared, about Epstein. Yet Roberts had alleged that Epstein kept her as a sex slave and forced her to perform sex acts on people like Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz. Do you think viewers cared about these high-profile men? I imagine so.

 

Three years ago, you might remember, Bill Clinton’s wife was in the midst of revving up her presidential run. One imagines a story detailing her husband’s vacations to a pedophile’s island retreat might have been newsworthy.

 

By the way, now that the Epstein has broken, has Robach wrapped up that reporting on Clinton, yet?

 

The notion that Robach believed she was merely venting during a “private moment” isn’t plausible, either. Any regular guest—and Robach is on TV every day—knows that a gaggle of producers is listening to everything that’s being said, and that everything that’s being said is going to be on tape.

 

Yet, instead of facing these questions, ABC has convinced another network, CBS, to fire the staffer who blew the whistle on the spiked Epstein story in the first place. Or in other words, paired with NBC News’ burying of the Harvey Weinstein story, we now have evidence of three major media institutions colluding to bury stories about serial abusers. One wonders how many young women might have been saved if they hadn’t.

+++++++++++++++++

Blog Editor: Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you belong to.

_________________________

Actual Whistleblower Exposes Epstein-MSM Coverup

John R. Houk

© November 9, 2019

__________________

CBS Just Fired Employee Who Blew Whistle on Epstein Cover-Up at ABC News

 

Activist Post | Creative Commons 2019

______________________

Project Veritas Says Jeffrey Epstein Whistleblower Still Working At ABC

 

Townhall.com is the leading source for conservative news and political commentary and analysis.


Copyright © Townhall.com/Salem Media. All Rights Reserved.

_____________________

ABC Insider: Why I, alone, released the Amy Robach Epstein tape.

 

© Project Veritas. All rights reserved.

_____________________________

ABC Keeps Covering for Jeffrey Epstein

 

COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM

 

The Daily Signal Homepage

 

Part of The Heritage Foundation

 

Muslims Rejecting America


Justin Smith righteously writes about a couple of Muslim gals (Muslemas) who incredulously managed to get elected to Congress. Putting it simply, these Muslim gals are a couple of Islamic Supremacist Jew-Haters.

 

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D – MI-13) & Rep. Ilhan Omar (D – MN-5)

 

JRH 3/11/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

*******************

Muslims Rejecting America  

A Twisted Reality in the House

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 3/9/2019 7:24 PM

 

Dual loyalty and anti-Semitism against Jews and supporters of Israel came to national attention recently over remarks made by freshman Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, a refugee from Somalia, who suggested that Jews were more loyal to Israel than they are loyal to the United States, and it is enough to make one laugh to keep from crying, if it were not so serious. Not only is Judaism not the problem in America, not the religion of terrorists seeking to destroy America and subjugate Her, but if anyone’s loyalty to America should be questioned, let’s look at these Muslemas, such as Omar, Representative Rashida Tlaib and Islamic supremacist and activist Linda Sarsour, whose own loyalties regularly appear to lie with Somalia, Iran, al Shabaab, Hamas, Hezbollah, Gaza and the mythical country of “Palestine“; and perhaps not so ironically, all Americans will see that Muslims born here and living here a majority of their lives are not assimilating as well as the “experts” would have us believe.

 

The remark by Omar that led to the March 7th House resolution against hate, anti-Semitism, anti-Muslim bigotry and white supremacists went as follows: “I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it’s OK to push for allegiance to a foreign country.” Even many prominent Democrats, such as Rep. Eliot Engel (NY) thought this echoed charges of “dual loyalty” to Israel that have long been used to intimidate Jews from participating in politics, as he offered that such words “have no place in our public discourse and indeed can be very dangerous.”

 

Tlaib also charged Jews with harboring dual loyalty in January, when she said political supporters of Israel “forgot what country they represent“.

 

Omar, now 37, has lived in America since age eight, and that makes it all the more interesting that just weeks after her election, on December 20th 2016, Omar was in Mogadishu, Somalia with its president, Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, and she went on to also meet with her husband to be, Ahmed Hirsi, and his friend, former Prime Minister Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed, also called “Farmajo“, who is also a U.S. citizen and now Somalia’s new President.

 

Security Agent Directive 4 in the U.S Code states in part: “Conditions that could easily raise a security concern … include contact, regardless of method, with a foreign family member … professional associate … or a … resident in a citizen of or resident in a foreign country if that contact creates a heightened risk of exploitation, manipulation, pressure, or coercion.”

 

On March 17th, Representative Rashida Tlaib, an American Palestinian-Muslim, who took her Constitutional Oath on the Koran and wrapped herself in a Palestinian flag after her election as she promised to “impeach the mother ****er” (Pres. Trump), is speaking in Livonia, Michigan, alongside Imam Omar Suleiman, who supports executing homosexuals and hijabs for women to avoid incestuous relationships. She also is tied to many other Islamic supremacists, associates of terrorists and terrorist organizations, such as the Muslim American Society and CAIR, front groups for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, and Jamaat-e-Islami and the Islamic Circle of North America.

 

On March 23rd, Rep. Omar will speak at the Los Angeles CAIR event, the 4th Annual Valley Banquet, where she will meet with Islamist Hassan Shibly (CAIR of Florida), who actively supports Hamas and Hezbollah. She will rub shoulders with the director of CAIR – Los Angeles, Hussam Ayloush, who blamed United States’ policy for the Islamic terror attack on San Bernardino.

 

Like Tlaib, Linda Sarsour is an American Palestinian-Muslim, born in Brooklyn, who is a Jew-hating, Israel-hating apologist for Islamic jihadi terrorists that advocates for the movement to boycott, divest and sanction Israel. She tweeted, in 2012, “Nothing is creepier than Zionism.”

 

On March 6th, speaking in Arabic, Linda Sarsour ordered her Islamic thugs of CAIR to block Asra Nomani, a journalist and leader in the Muslim Reform Movement, from entering Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s office, behind her, Islamist Jinan Shbat and Nihad Awad, executive director of CAIR [Blog Editor: On same day Sarsour posed for photos with CAIR thugs in Rep. Ilhan Omar’s office], as they wished to discuss their anti-Semitic views with Omar in private. So, we now see Islamic thugs controlling the Halls of Congress.

 

Yasmine Mohammed offered the following translation on March 7th, in a tweet: ““Don’t let her be one of the first ones in. Do you all hear me?”

Nomani was a friend of Daniel Pearl, Wall Street Journal reporter, who was abducted and murdered in Pakistan. She was in Pakistan at the time and made sure his story was front and center in the news and his memory honored. Pearl’s brutal beheading and his friendship with Nomani meant nothing to these anti-Semitic Sons of Mohammed, who mistreated her.

 

Many Republicans and even a few Democrats stated that Omar should have been named in the resolution. Pelosi asserted, “It’s not about her; it’s about these forms of hatred.” Pelosi simply has chosen to ignore Omar’s long pattern of these sort of anti-Semitic statements.

 

And so, rather than censure Ilhan Omar, a Somalian Muslim, and others in Congress for their anti-Jewish anti-Semitic words and deeds, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party had to take an entire week to condemn all hate and also “anti-Muslim discrimination and bigotry against minorities.” Talk about a weak resolution and losing focus.

 

It’s not the Jewish religion and Israel that are engaging in terrorism worldwide and committing one terror act after another in America. It is Islam and Muslims to the largest extent.

 

Neither did the resolution mention Christianity at a time when a rising tide of hatred is witnessed against Bible-believing Christians, and yet, five entire sections focus on anti-Muslim bigotry and “the reality of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, racism” and the need “to ensure that the United States will live up to the transcendent principles of tolerance, religious freedom, and equal protection as embodied in the Declaration of Independence and … the Constitution“. [Resolution – 030719]

 

How remarkably disingenuous of the Democrats to presume to tell Americans that we must be tolerant of the intolerant Muslims who reject the very principles named in this miserable farce of a resolution.

 

These Muslemas, who so benefited from the system they hate, have absorbed the Islamic propaganda they were spoon-fed from childhood. And now fully indoctrinated, they speak like foreign representatives from Muslim nations, always blaming America, Israel and “the Jews” first, before anything else. They call good “evil” and evil “good”, while hating America and Israel for having the strength of conviction and virtue to stand in the face of the absolutely unequivocally proven evil ideology of Islam.

 

Nothing is made clearer by the examples of Rep. Ilhan Omar, Rep. Rashida Tlaib and activist Linda Sarsour that too many in the Muslim-American community have failed to adopt Western values, while they prove, despite contrary assertions, that it is never a good idea to accept individuals into America whose values and customs are so antithetical to U.S. principles and American culture. And although they would have been better served to have stayed in the Middle East, America still has legislators bound and determined to impose policies of identity politics and multiculturalism, that allow refugee communities to isolate themselves and essentially refuse to assimilate.

 

Americans will not be surprised, once they witness Omar, Tlaib and Sarsour and their associates continue to form tighter bonds with Islamic supremacist connections and utter more anti-Semitic rhetoric. These Muslemas are unassimilated Islamofascists who have rejected the American way of life and our American traditions, culture and heritage, with the blame, in part, lying at the feet of U.S. policies that defer to the customs of the homelands of refugee communities. And if we continue to allow Muslims to immigrate to the U.S. and ignore their anti-American customs, America will surely see many more Omars and Tlaibs join the ranks of Congress, with their hatred for America’s founding principles and America Herself.

 

By Justin O. Smith

 

[Blog Editor: YOU should pay attention what Islamic Supremacism means to a non-Muslim:

 

 

 

 

 

 

__________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links and any text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

The Democratic Party Endangers America’s Cultural Heritage


This essay by Justin Smith could easily criticized as a White Supremacy racist message. IT IS NOT! Justin is criticizing foreigners desiring to live in America illegally and/or without intention to assimilate to American culture are an unwelcome burden on the American taxpayer (i.e. Red, Yellow, Black and White) and an assault on the Liberty and Values built on the pedestal of American Founding Fathers.

 

If you are a person refusing assimilation or an un-American Marxist in all that ideology’s political deceptions, get over yourself.

 

JRH 1/21/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

******************

The Democratic Party Endangers America’s Cultural Heritage – Open Borders Are National Suicide

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 1/20/2019 7:33 PM

 

America is currently witnessing the harsh reality of a Democratic Party intent on gaining power by any means necessary and so enraged by the election of President Trump, that they will not even acknowledge America and her patriots have a right to determine who and how many enter our nation, under any set of circumstances. The resulting standoff between President Trump and Speaker Nancy Pelosi and their respective supporters has allowed the harsh reality to come home, that the Democratic Party really has become the anti-American Party of Brown Ascendancy; and, the Democrats, such as Pelosi and Senator Chuck Schumer, place more value on their own power and their by and large white-hating communist, socialist, and fascist allies from South and Central America and North Africa and the Middle East, than they do on America’s own citizens.

 

This is an egregious and horrific affront to millions of true American Patriots who have long subscribed to MLK’s admonishment to judge a person not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character, and although many Democrats’ may not intend the “browning of America”, their policies are having that effect. The results are emanating from the Democrat realization that most of these people vote for large centralized government and socialist solutions, which the Democrats are using to their advantage to secure power.

 

No one is walking around saying, “We really need more Guatemalans and Eritreans around here.” If immigration was capped at zero, no one would notice. In fact, if there was a moratorium and the government started aggressive deportations of illegal aliens, even those in the system, most Americans really would appreciate it.

 

And certainly no one, other than the radical socialists and the Democratic Party (One in the same?), would want any more Muslims and their backward, violent and evil Islamic ideology from the Middle East, since they simply don’t fit well at all in a modern Western country. Everywhere Muslim migration has been high, we see terrorist barriers, armed patrols and absurd security measures. In fact, most Americans, the average citizen on the street, would go along with deporting all Muslims. Our efforts to reform and assimilate Muslims has not worked and they can never work. U.S. policy toward all Muslim majority nations should always first be containment.

 

Similarly, sub-Saharan Africans are a no-go. America has a long history of trying to integrate Africans into a European country. It does not work. It does not make any sense to bring a new population of immigrants into America, especially when they have a reluctance to assimilate and a natural hostility towards Europeans. Again, no one is walking around wondering how affairs are in Chad. That and American blacks don’t like African migrants [Blog Editor: Of possible interest – African immigrant perception (from Sierra Leone), Academic themed perception & another Academic themed perception (pdf download & web cache).

 

One must note, Jose Angel Gutierrez, professor of political science and Mexican-American studies at the University of Texas and co-founder of La Raza Unida (the Race United), made the following statement in [FrontPageMag.com posted] 2017: “Our devil has pale skin and blue eyes … if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him.”

 

In 2011, a visiting professor of African American Studies at the University of North Carolina, Kamau Kambon stated: “We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet to solve this problem… the problem on the planet is white people.”

 

This new Democratic Caucus in Congress represents most Muslims, a large Jewish segment, exotic transgender groups, the black church ladies and the college queers, and they all hate one another. Its incoming class is the most diverse in history and includes the first Muslim Congresswomen and the first Native American Congresswoman. However, they all hate the white man more, which is the main focus that keeps them united, as they say in so many words, “White men are the ones keeping you down. You must hate white men.” [Blog Editor: I think Justin is referencing Ann Coulter’s controversial sentiments from mid-December 2018.]

 

The red, radical Democratic Party is all that stands in the way of solving the current border security issue and our immigration crisis, because they do not seem to care that an Open Borders policy means the end of our Republic, as it has stood since 1776. They have turned away from their collective position that voted for the 2006 Secure Fence Act and 700 miles of barriers along the southern border, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi reiterates that she will not consider any deal that includes President Trump’s wall.

 

Democrats have also long held positions against both legal and illegal immigration, just like California Governor Jerry Brown, who stated in 1975: “(It’s strange to say) ‘Let’s bring in 500,000 more (Vietnamese) people’ when we can’t take care of one million (Californians) out of work.”

 

In 1994, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) told ‘Face the Nation’: Border control is a federal responsibility. We simply don’t enforce our borders adequately. [In California] about 2,000 people a day illegally cross the border … about two million [annually] who compete for housing … classroom space … there’s well over 300,000 (on Medicaid) today who are illegal aliens. That presents obvious problems.”

 

The media has focused on the sexual assault of young women and girls in the immigrant caravans and other hardships, while ignoring the real consequences of crimes committed by millions of illegal aliens in America each year and the cries for justice from the Angel Families of the victims. In the past two years, from DHS records, ICE arrested 266,000 aliens with criminal records, which included 100,000 assaults, 30,000 sexual assaults and 4,000 heinous murders. Also, the cost of the illegal drug trade is more than $500 billion, with ninety percent of the heroin and deadly fentanyl coming to America across the southern border, and as noted by President Trump, this is “vastly more than the $5.7 billion we have requested from Congress.”

 

Although the 9/11 terrorists came to America legally and the wall is only a part of national security and border control, wherever walls and barriers have been erected, whether in Korea or Israel, they work. As President Trump recently observed: “There are now 77 major … Walls built around the world … Over 800 miles of Walls have been built in Europe since 2015 (and) recognized as close to 100% successful. Stop the crime at our Southern Border!”

 

So now America has upwards of approximately 22 million or more (no one really knows) illegal aliens in the country, who are influencing the vote and elected positions and laws, who have no idea what this nation was founded upon, working with a limited and or flawed understanding of Judeo-Christian and Western principles and often refusing to assimilate. This has changed our country as much as if we had been conquered by an enemy nation, but because it has happened slowly, even those who see the changes often don’t know how to explain them. And, abandoning assimilation of immigrants guarantees the eradication of essential values and customs that created America to be the envy of all other nations.

 

Do the math. Give 22 million illegal aliens with strong socialist leanings the vote, as planned by Democrats, when historically the biggest landslide victory in American history was determined by several million less votes, and it means a massive pay-off for the Democrats in a permanent electoral majority for the foreseeable future. In a word: Power.

 

For Americans, the real issue is how many South or Central Americans or people of any other nationality we will accept. That quickly reduces to a much simpler question. Do we need any of them? For most of Us, the answer is “No, we don’t need more people.” Therefore, the only question left is, “Are we morally bound to take anyone in for permanent settlement?”

 

Everyone in the world does not have the right to live in America. However, all Americans have the right, through their elected representatives, to decide who immigrates to America and under what conditions. How much more American blood must be spilled before Congress does its job?

 

Our heritage and culture of freedom and individual liberty is now placed in danger by the Democratic Party and large numbers of uninvited people who have no such experience. There is a limit to the number of people that can immigrate to America in a short period of time without changing our culture. Continuing in the direction of the Open Borders desired by the Democrats is national suicide.

 

The solutions are found in building the wall first and followed immediately by the deportation of the illegal aliens already in the U.S. Next, tell Mexico that all legal immigration is halted until they stop illegals from trying to get here from their nation. Prosecute everyone helping or hiring illegal aliens; and start with U.S. governors and mayors. Seize business under RICO of any business caught with five or more illegals in its hire. Tax remittances at the top rate in perpetuity. And finally, stop all legal immigration for at least the next three decades.

 

Until the American people, on the whole, are made to understand the real threat of socialism and communism to their freedoms and liberties, in the public discourse and dichotomy, our nation is on course for a miserable future. We either win this debate, or we prepare for an all-out civil war to rid the nation of the Reds — the Communists and the Socialists. the multiculturalists and diversity crowd — and their white hating allies from South and Central America and various African nations, who are bent on open borders and globalist policies and the destruction of Our national sovereignty and Constitutional Republic, our traditional American way of life.

 

[Blog Editor – Lessons failed to be taught in American schools & colleges:

 

 

 

 

Any sane person intuitively knows that the culture, the law, the stability and the economics of a nation are endangered by massive illegal immigration, especially if that immigration is comprised of a culture that is inherently in opposition to the existing culture. Any normal, reasonable and prudent person instinctively knows that if the make-up of those illegally immigrating to another nation are culturally poor in income levels, job skills, education and hygiene, the cost to the existing population will be a huge, growing and dangerous burden. To allow massive illegal immigration to continue, without trying to stop or impede it, is an affront to the living population and makes a mockery out of the rule of law. To establish sanctuaries for illegal aliens, whether by government or religious organizations, openly and blatantly violates the rights of legal citizens. Those political or religious leaders who are proponents of massive illegal immigration, open borders and illegal alien sanctuaries are traitors to the nation and its people, and they should be summarily fired, charged, prosecuted and placed in prison.

 

By Justin O. Smith

______________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links, text and commentary enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

BORDER WALL, NATIONAL SECURITY & USA SOVEREIGNTY!


While I was sharing the blog post “National Security Debates on the Border and Beyond,” Kelly Guthridge shared some thoughts along the same lines. It’s worthy of a share.

 

JRH 1/4/19

Please Support NCCR

*******************

BORDER WALL, NATIONAL SECURITY & USA SOVEREIGNTY!

 

Photo via Blog Editor found on Facebook

 

By Kelly Guthridge

January 3, 2019

Via Facebook Messenger

 

Let’s examine some basic information and ideas.

 

1) Democrats years ago supported and demanded Border SECURITY!

2) Democrats all have Walls, Fences, Gates, Heavily ARMED Guards surrounding and protecting them!

3) Donald J. Trump is Elected President of the United States of America and NOW Democrats OPPOSE a Border WALL… Only because it would occur during President Trump’s time in office!

4) Democrats and their Propaganda Machine, the MSM Fake News Media keep insisting that all of the INVADERS attacking our Republic and attempting to enter illegally are simple poor migrants that we must embrace… which is all a lie!

 

I could keep going on and on but what would be the reason after all we all know the FACTS and REALITY of this ongoing situation!

 

NOW, here’s my idea… if Democrats truly don’t believe in WALLS then let them remove all of those that surround their own personal properties… Also, perhaps there needs to be a MASSIVE MIGRATION OF HOMELESS AMERICANS that all converge upon and surround these Obstructionists Democrats Homes… and start DEMANDING immediate entry for a better future and life!

 

What’s good for the Goose is good for the Gander… time to bring the REALITY OF THEIR HYPOCRISY HOME TO THE STEPS OF THEIR OWN HOMES!!!

 

 

National Security Debates on the Border and Beyond


Mark Alexander

 

Mark Alexander tackles the Trump vs. Dem on Border Security: The Wall, Dem hypocrisy over the Wall and government shutdown. ALSO, he takes a relatively brief look at plus and minus of troop withdrawal from Syria.

 

JRH 1/3/18

Please Support NCCR

******************

National Security Debates on the Border and Beyond

Two national security issues are casting a long shadow over 2019.

 

By Mark Alexander

January 2, 2019

The Patriot Post

 

“The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations and Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.” —George Washington

 

Ronil Singh, wife & baby

 

Sometimes, the first column of the year is an easy one — just a few reflections about the year past and the year to come.

 

Unfortunately, the last week of 2018 was marred by a couple of political confrontations that are casting a long shadow over the new year. Most notable among those issues are two significant national security issues.

 

The first of these is a rather straightforward interruption of some “non-essential government bureaucracies” beginning on 22 December, which President Donald Trump implemented after Democrats failed to provide sufficient federal funding to secure our border with Mexico.

 

The second is a policy shift in the Middle East — much more a chess move than the mainstream media’s typical portrayal of this policy change as a game of checkers.

 

Regarding the border security/shutdown showdown

 

I have covered in detail how all Democrat Party leaders, including incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-NY) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), have repeatedly advocated for border security and strong immigration laws — until it was no longer politically expedient to do so. Democrats oppose securing our southern border for two reasons: first, because Trump supports it, and second, because these illegal immigrants and their progeny represent the Democrat Party’s most promising and powerful source of new votes.

 

Demos, therefore, don’t want “immigration solutions.” They want to appease their Hispanic constituents with smoke-and-mirror political rhetoric. In addition, they are using immigration as diversionary fodder to undermine the Trump administration’s considerable economic policy success.

 

Thus, by advocating for open borders, Democrats hope to create a socialist-voter pipeline by flooding our nation with illegal immigrants who are likely to require long-term, taxpayer-funded government assistance.

 

However, an unforeseen problem with this strategy is that a growing number of Latinos and Hispanics in our country now, legal and illegal, don’t want the job and wage competition from more illegals flooding in from Mexico and Central America. Democrats say they support a “living wage” but then advocate, in effect, an open border, which ensures that millions of working men and women will never break free of the minimum wage.

 

The Democrats’ refusal to secure our border with Mexico, and their so-called “sanctuary city” agenda, has, over the years, invited millions of illegal immigrants to invade our southern border, many of them using children as human bargaining chips in order to stay in the U.S. Some are seeking economic welfare, while others pose a significant threat to our citizens.

 

Three recent and tragic deaths should constitute a low benchmark in the never-ending border-security debate.

 

In late December, there were two deaths of immigrant children in Border Patrol custody. The first was an eight-year-old boy whose Guatemalan mother declared, according to press reports, that the boy’s father brought the sick child with him “because they figured he’d have an easier chance of gaming the American immigration system to gain an illegal foothold here.” His sister said, “We heard rumors that they could pass [into the United States]. They said they could pass with the children.” Another Guatemalan child, a seven-year-old girl who was sick when she and her father were apprehended by the Border Patrol, also died.

 

President Trump noted correctly, “Deaths of children or others at the Border are strictly the fault of the Democrat … immigration policies that [encourage] people to make the long trek thinking they can enter our country illegally. … The two children in question were very sick before they were given over to the Border Patrol. The father of the young girl said it was not their fault, he hadn’t given her water in days. The Border Patrol needs the Wall and it will all end. They are working so hard and getting so little credit.”

 

But there was another death in December, also the direct result of Democrat inaction on border security, that should be a rallying point for all Americans.

 

The day after Christmas, Newman, California, police officer Ronil Singh, himself a legal immigrant from Fiji, was murdered by an illegal immigrant. Arrested for that murder was Gustavo Arriaga, a Mexican national with reported ties to the violent Surenos gang and previous arrests that should have resulted in his deportation.

 

Tragically, California’s incomprehensible “sanctuary” restrictions prevented his arrest from being reported to immigration officials. In other words, Democrats opened the door for Officer Singh’s murderer to enter our country, and Democrat policies prevented him from being rightly deported. Seven other illegal immigrants have been arrested in connection with Singh’s murder. (A week earlier, another illegal immigrant in California murdered two people in a crime spree.)

 

Singh’s brother Reggie expressed his family’s grief and his gratitude for the apprehension of the assailant: “I’d like to thank you from the bottom of my heart. … I wish I could thank all of the law-enforcement agencies, Homeland Security in San Francisco, everyone.”

 

Stanislaus County Sheriff Adam Christianson, whose agency led the investigation into Officer Singh’s murder, issued this condemnation of the California laws that allowed for this cold-blooded murder: “While we absolutely need to stay focused on Officer Singh’s service and sacrifice, we can’t ignore the fact that this could’ve been prevented. … This is a criminal illegal alien with prior criminal activity that should have been reported to ICE. We were prohibited — law enforcement was prohibited because of sanctuary laws, and that led to the [murder of Cpl.] Singh. … This is not how you protect a community.”

 

This murder by a violent illegal immigrant — and countless others before it and to come — demands an answer to the following question: “Sanctuary for whom?”

 

On these senseless murders, Don Rosenberg, whose son Drew was killed by an illegal alien, said, “We relive what happened to our loved ones. It’s just another stab in the back, particularly in California by our government that doesn’t give a damn about our families. They don’t care about us. They don’t care that their policies and their laws are killing people.”

 

Officer Singh now joins a tragic and ever-growing list of Americans murdered by illegal immigrants, including Kate Steinle, Jamiel Shaw, and Mollie Tibbetts, as well as countless others whose violent deaths apparently didn’t warrant widespread media coverage. (Two days after Singh’s murder, in nearby Knoxville, Tennessee, an illegal immigrant was arrested for the criminally negligent homicide of a 22-year-old local resident.)

 

We extend our prayers for officer Singh’s family and for all law-enforcement personnel who man that wall 24/7, providing protection for their fellow citizens.

 

Responding to the latest instances of violence and the epidemic issues of drug- and sex-trafficking of minors across our southern border, President Trump, who has already deployed military personnel to assist with border security, declared that inaction on securing our border with Mexico will result in shutting it down entirely: “We will be forced to close the Southern Border entirely if the Democrats do not give us the money to finish the Wall and also change the ridiculous immigration laws that our Country is saddled with.”

 

Trump quote on Illegal Immigration Embarrassment

 

Regarding the enormous financial cost of illegal immigration, Trump noted, “It’s a national embarrassment that an illegal immigrant can walk across the border and receive free health care and one of our Veterans that has served our country is put on a waiting list and gets no care.” Indeed it is.

 

The taxpayer burden of illegal immigration is conservatively estimated at $155 billion per year — versus a one-time expense of $7-$9 billion for Trump’s border barrier.

 

For the record, Congress has already authorized redistributing $10.6 billion in taxpayer funds to Mexico for its own southern border security.

 

But on own southern border, Homeland Security spokeswoman Katie Waldman Tuesday, “Once again we have had a violent mob of migrants attempt to enter the United States illegally by attacking our agents with projectiles. The agents involved should be applauded for handling the situation with no reported injuries to the attackers.”

 

Regarding the so-called “shutdown showdown”

 

President Trump has already signed legislation approving $900 billion of $1.2 trillion for federal agency operating expenses, but the partial shutdown is having a significant impact on 800,000 people on the federal payroll.

 

The interruption of “non-essential government services” and furlough of 380,000 government employees could be viewed as “paid vacation,” as Congress has always restored back pay retroactively. However, many of those affected live on tight margins, and missing paychecks means potentially missing loan and mortgage payments and other bills. They will begin feeling the pinch in January, but taxpayers, who are footing the bill, are already bearing the shutdown burden. The same is true of the 420,000 essential government employees who remain on the job, most in security positions, who will not receive pay starting in January, but are guaranteed their back pay. Those employed by government contractors will not see their back pay restored.

 

How did we get here?

 

In short, President Trump requested $5 billion in additional border-security funding in order to begin construction of barriers along our southern border with Mexico. Before recess, in one of the last actions of the Republican-controlled House before Democrats take over this week, lawmakers passed a bill approving $5.7 billion in additional funding. But that bill was dead on arrival in the Senate, which only agreed to $1.3 billion for border security, and none of that for a border barrier.

 

When Senate Democrats denied additional border-barrier funding, including a $2.5 billion compromise offer from Vice President Mike Pence, Trump ordered the partial shutdown. For how long? According to the president, “I can’t tell you when the government is going to reopen. … [Not until] we have a wall, a fence, whatever they’d like to call it. I’ll call it whatever they want. But it’s all the same thing. It’s a barrier from people pouring into our country.”

 

Trump drew attention to the necessity of security walls by mentioning one in particular: “President and Mrs. Obama built a 10-foot Wall around their D.C. mansion/compound. I agree, totally necessary for their safety and security. The US needs slightly larger version!”

 

Dem Homes Walled Hypocrisy

 

The consummate dealmaker, Trump is looking for some concession from Democrats by using Obama’s illegal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) deceit as a bargaining chip, but he may not get one. Notably, he has also issued an executive order putting a hold on pay increases for all non-military government employees — another bargaining chip.

 

Meanwhile, Pelosi’s Democrats are weighing their options for a rebuttal when they return this week. They intend to pass a package of Senate spending bills to reopen the government — in an attempt to shift blame for the shutdown to Republicans.

 

Of course Trump will not approve that ploy, as noted by Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders: “Pelosi released a plan that will not re-open the government because it fails to secure the border and puts the needs of other countries above the needs of our own citizens. The Pelosi plan is a non-starter because it does not fund our homeland security or keep American families safe from human trafficking, drugs, and crime.”

 

The president has called key members of Congress to the White House today for negotiations. But the biggest obstacle to border security is, as Trump noted, this: “The Democrats don’t want to let us have strong borders, only for one reason. You know why? Because I want it.”

 

Regarding our military presence in Syria and Middle East policy

 

Whether in domestic or foreign policy matters, Trump has shown a penchant for strategic unpredictability that inevitably comes with varying degrees of perceived instability — which he happens to thrive on.

 

In 2016, Trump laid out his priorities for defeating the resurgent Islamic State, along with his policy objective in Syria: “What we should do is focus on ISIS. We should not be focusing on Syria. You’re going to end up in world war three over Syria if we listen to Hillary Clinton. You’re not fighting Syria any more, you’re fighting Syria, Russia and Iran, all right?” He added that dealing with Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad was “secondary … to [ISIS].”

 

A week before Christmas, the White House announced President Trump’s “slow and highly coordinated pullout of U.S. troops” from Syria. According to Trump, “We have won against ISIS … Our young women, our men, they’re all coming back and they’re coming back now. We won.”

 

Trump elaborated, “American and coalition forces have had one military victory after another over the last two years against ISIS, including the retaking of both Mosul in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria. We’ve liberated more than 20,000 square miles of territory … and liberated more than 3 million civilians from ISIS’s bloodthirsty control … I made it clear from the beginning that our mission in Syria was to strip ISIS of its military strongholds; we’re not nation building. … Our presence in Syria was not open-ended, and it was never intended to be permanent. The men and women who serve are entitled to clear objectives, and the confidence that when those objectives are met they can come home and be with their families. Our objective in Syria was always to retake the territory controlled by ISIS. Now that we have done so, the nations of the region must step up and take more responsibility for their future.”

 

He concluded, “There will be a strong, deliberate, and orderly withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria — very deliberate, very orderly — while maintaining the U.S. presence in Iraq to prevent an ISIS resurgence and to protect U.S. interests, and also to always watch very closely over any potential reformation of ISIS and also to watch over Iran.”

 

Notably, he reiterated: “I never said that I’m gonna rush out. … ISIS was all over the place when I took over. It was a total mess in Syria. We’ve almost eradicated all of them. We think all of them will be gone by the time we get out.”

 

Clearly, containing Iranian and Russian influence in Syria is important, but not the job of the U.S. military. Trump is, in effect, telling Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt and Israel, this is their task – that we will provide weapons and aid, but not boots on the ground. The intended net effect of this policy is to strengthen the alliances between Arabs and Jews in the region, who all have an interest in preventing the expansion of Iran’s Islamist influence.

 

Predictably, criticism of Trump’s decision came in droves from both sides of the aisle. Perhaps the most controversial of the president’s assertions was “We won,” leaving many to ask what, exactly, did we win? Amidst the flood of opinion still pouring in from critics and supporters alike, what follows are the most valid pros and cons of the Syria departure.

 

 

Orderly Withdrawal of U.S. Forces

 

Supporting the departure:

 

  1. Troops in Syria, an Obama-era decision, were never congressionally authorized, so the departure is a win for the Constitution. National Review analysts Andrew McCarthy and David French, who otherwise have a difference of opinion on the Syria withdrawal, both agree that the Iraq/Afghanistan Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) did not extend to Syria. French notes, “President Obama should have gone to Congress and sought the necessary authorization to respond.” Likewise, McCarthy declared: “[If] you want to fight that enemy in an elective war, the Constitution demands that the people give their consent through their representatives in Congress.”

 

  1. We’ll continue to monitor Syria and deny it as a safe haven for terrorism, according to President Trump. One of the foremost critics of the decision to leave Syria was initially Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). However, Graham reversed course after meeting with the president, stating: “[I] feel a lot better about where we’re headed in Syria.” He noted that Trump remains stalwart in his commitment to preventing Syria from being a safe haven for terrorist cells, saying, “He promised to destroy ISIS. He’s going to keep that promise. We’re not there yet, but as I said today, we’re inside the 10-yard line and the president understands the need to finish the job.”

 

  1. To Be Determined? If Trump has taught us anything over the last two years, it’s that there’s always a bigger plan in play than what he and the ardently anti-Trump media reveal. Time and again, we’ve seen his decisions turn out better than expected. So we’re going to leave this last “pro” space open — there’s something else at play here that has yet to become clear, and we trust that it’s in our nation’s best interest. Again, Trump is playing chess while the media sees only checkers.

 

Against the departure:

 

  1. The U.S. will be less equipped to counteract its strategic enemies. The conflict in Syria is deeply complex, but of the numerous parties invested in the outcome — Syria, Iran, Russia, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, the Kurds, and the U.S., to name a few — our ability to influence outcomes in the region may be weakened as a result of Trump’s decision to depart. Policy analyst Colin Dueck notes: “A sudden and unexpected drawdown of U.S. forces can only reduce America’s leverage against a range of adversaries and competitors including ISIS and the Taliban.” Though we retain the ability to influence the outcome through political and economic means, we are less equipped to influence change without troops on the deck.

 

  1. Our allies will be less secure as a result, as will our myriad interests in the outcome of the conflict. Even with a reported footprint of only 2,000 troops (assuredly, some of our presence in the region is undisclosed or classified), our presence in Syria helped to assure safety and security to our regional allies by checking our enemies. As The Jerusalem Post’s Caroline Glick writes: “Despite their relatively small numbers, the U.S. forces in Syria have had a massive strategic impact on the power balance in the country. Deployed along the border triangle joining Syria, Iraq and Jordan, the U.S. forces in Syria have blocked Iran taking over the Iraqi-Syria border and so forging a land bridge linking Iran to the Mediterranean through Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.” Now, in our absence, Israel and Jordan will have to become better equipped to prevent the flow of logistics, personnel, and ideology from Tehran to Beirut, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.

 

  1. There was speculation about Defense Secretary James Mattis’s resignation before the Syrian shift, but he certainly signaled his disagreement with Trump’s decision. As David French wrote, “Our nation has lost its foremost warrior in protest [of the decision].” Although Trump will surely identify a capable defense secretary to follow in “Mad Dog’s” footsteps, his departure struck a blow to the perceived stability of our military policy. Mattis was the member of Trump’s National Security Council with the most familiarity with military policy in the Middle East, beginning with his command of Task Force 58 during Operation Enduring Freedom, the invasion of Afghanistan after the 9/11 Islamist attack.

 

The departure of Mattis will also have a significant impact on the morale and well-being of our men and women in uniform, who rightly held him in high regard.

 

It should be noted that Gen. Mattis also disagreed with President Trump on other important matters of policy: walking away from the Obama administration’s Paris climate agreement and tearing up its Iran nuke deal; moving our nation’s embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem; engaging with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un; banning certain “transgender” individuals from U.S. military service; and using U.S. troops to defend our southern border.

 

In summary, our military analyst, Lee Crockett, concludes that Syria, Iran, and Afghanistan constitute a complex tapestry of international politics and warfare.

 

According to Crocket: “The Syria conflict is incredibly complicated, and it is a microcosm of the geopolitical conflict between Iran, China, Russia, and the West. One possible outcome could be that the unification of both parties against the pullout could result in a congressionally approved AUMF for any further involvement in Syria. But if history has taught us anything about prolonged wars (see Vietnam, 1964-1973, and Afghanistan, 2001-present) it is that simply pulling chocks and bringing the troops home has resulted in America failing to accomplish its desired ends.

 

“In 1964, we sought to prevent communism from bleeding into South Vietnam and beyond. Two administrations and three presidential terms later, our national resolve on the importance of South Vietnam faltered, and we abandoned South Vietnam to a communist takeover in 1975. We entered Afghanistan in 2001 to erode the nation’s status as a safe haven for terrorism. Two administrations and three presidential terms later in 2013, our national resolve on the importance of Afghanistan to our national security faltered, and we abandoned Afghanistan to the resurgence of the Taliban and Islamism.

 

“President Trump wisely returned to Afghanistan in force in 2017, though we returned to a nation that was not only war-torn but also being overrun again by the Islamist Taliban. In 2014, we entered Syria (unconstitutionally though it was) to counteract the Islamic State and prevent the region from harboring terrorist cells. Now that President Trump has decided to depart, have we truly accomplished our initial objective, or will the Syrian departure result in a regional failure to secure our national interests — suffering the same fate as Vietnam and Afghanistan at our allies’ expense?”

 

The criticism of Trump’s unfolding military strategy in Syria was punctuated by a surprise Christmas visit by the president and first lady to Al Asad Air Base in Iraq.

 

To the resounding cheers of military personnel, Trump asserted: “Our faith and confidence in you is absolute and total. … You are the warriors who defend our freedom. You are the patriots who ensure the flame of liberty burns forever bright. That’s who you are. … To everyone at Al Asad Air Base, and every American serving overseas, may God bless you, may God protect you, and may God always keep you safe. We love you. We support you. We salute you. We cherish you. And together, we pray for justice, goodness, and peace on Earth.”

 

On that, we can all agree. Above all the political rancor, I ask you to join us in daily prayer for God’s blessing upon our nation, especially for the protection of and provision for our uniformed Patriots and their families, and wisdom for our nation’s leaders.

 

Note: Thank you to all who supported The Patriot Fund’s 2018 Year-End Campaign — we will provide an update on Thursday. This campaign accounts for almost 50% of our annual operating revenue and sustains our publication from November to April.

 

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Pro Deo et Libertate — 1776

__________________

Copyright © 2019 The Patriot Post.

 

The Patriot Post Mission

 

The Patriot Post is steadfast in our mission to extend the endowment of Liberty to the next generation by advocating for individual rights and responsibilities, supporting the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and promoting free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. We are a rock-solid conservative touchstone for the expanding ranks of grassroots Americans Patriots from all walks of life. We are not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we do not accept advertising to ensure our advocacy is not restrained by commercial influence. Our mission and operation budgets are funded entirely by the contributions from Patriots like you. Please support The Patriot Fund today!

 

About The Patriot Post

 

The Death of America’s Justice System


One thing the Dems have become experts at is exploiting the rule of law to exact Elitist rule over American life by hindering all things Conservative and especially manufacturing non-existent crimes to investigate all things Donald Trump. Justin Smith weighs in.

 

JRH 12/23/18

So readers, I’ve been using a seven year old laptop to fulfill the old blogging habit. My lovely wife sprang for an upgrade. I’m a relatively small-time blogger but with a consistently growing readership despite some token censorship from the liberal-oriented blog and social platforms.

Whatever my readers can chip in will be appreciated: https://www.paypal.me/johnrhouk

Please Support NCCR

*******************

The Death of America’s Justice System

President Trump: Besieged by Enemies of the State

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 12/21/2018 6:44 PM

 

President Donald J. Trump is currently besieged by an out-of-control anti-American Robert Mueller and his Special Counsel team of Democrats, who are abusing the rule of law and wielding the law like a 20-pound sledgehammer to smash President Trump’s existential threat to the Establishment ruling class’s monopoly on power. This “special counsel”, Mueller, an un-elected political hack and Hillary sycophant, is moving against our elected representative to the White House, attacking conservative American’s interests, in an effort to prove President Trump unworthy of the office. And this double-standard of “law” only highlights the fact that our “justice system” has died.

 

America has become punch-drunk from the blows She has recently taken from these self-serving globalists, communists and tyrants of both parties, and we need to return to a true and genuine rule of law rather than the medieval-cum-Bolshevik practices of the Deep State style justice. And in the process, Mueller himself should be prosecuted for overstepping the bounds of common decency and entrapping General Michael Flynn, President Trump’s former National Security Advisor.

 

Flynn’s guilty plea was based on yielding to the FBI’s assertion that he had lied about his perfectly legal conversation with Russia’s Ambassador Kislyak and had concealed a discussion on sanctions. Flynn’s plea was coerced by Mueller, who had the full weight of government behind him, since the legal battle bankrupted him and placed his son under the threat of criminal prosecution. All of this aimed at a real-life war hero, Lt. General Flynn.

 

Flynn is only one of several Trump associates charged with making false statements, during the Russia probe; however incredibly, not one Hillary Clinton aide, not even Cheryl Mills, were charged with making false statements, even though several aids and Clinton herself flat out lied many times, during the FBI’s Clinton email investigation.

 

In October, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth noted:

 

“I had myself found that Cheryl Mills (senior aide) had … lied under oath … I was quite shocked to find that she had been given immunity … by the Justice Department … “.

 

Along with this, on December 17th, we had to listen to another Hillary minion, James Comey the Hypocrite, speak about President Trump’s so-called “attacks” on the rule of law, the very rule he abrogated when he superseded U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch and declared the Hillary Clinton email case closed, despite ample evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Comey himself was instrumental in going outside normal White House channels and entrapping Flynn, so ever intent as Comey was on bringing down the President.

 

Equally curious, the original interview FBI 302 document, in which two FBI agents state that Flynn did not lie, an exoneration, has magically disappeared and left us to rely on a half-assed interview of the two agents a half year after they originally interviewed Flynn, even though DC District Federal Judge Emmett Sullivan order Mueller and his lackeys to hand over the original 302, by December 14th. Mueller is pretending he can’t find them, while essentially symbolically telling a federal judge to “go to hell”.

 

Mueller and his group of Democrat lawyers, who represented the Clinton Crime Syndicate, are seeking any crime they can find or manufacture, in order to give Democrats ammo to impeach President Trump and undo the results of the 2016 election; even legal hush payments to Stormy Daniels, a whore, is now being turned into a crime, although Congress has maintained a fund to pay off sexual harassment claims against their members since 1995. “Treason” is the mantra of the day, even though the treason rests squarely in their own hearts and actions.

 

Mueller is applying the law against Trump and his associates in a bizarre and creative manner, putting them in peril from the law, when they could have never imagined that their conduct was somehow “illegal”. He’s charging the hell out of top conservative political shakers and movers, while refusing to give the socialist and communist elitist proponents of high treason skate clean away. making himself a tool of the ruling class to dismantle President Trump’s opposition and stop the draining of “the Swamp”.

 

No one is pretending now, and the mainstream media offers nary a peep over a rising and dangerous situation in our nation. If Trump had erased 30,000 emails that were under subpoena, he’d have been thrown under a prison in a Louisiana swamp somewhere, but not Hillary Clinton. Andrew McCabe and Comey lied through their teeth to Congress, but no one need look for them to ever be charged.

 

The Democrats erased a boatload of texts and used a deception to acquire a FISA warrant to spy on President Trump, but who cares, aside from the true American patriots? Nothing seems to matter to half of the country, other than their next welfare check and getting $15 an hour on the job and destroying our republic, “by any means necessary”. So, the Democrats get a pass.

 

If you and I had done a fraction of what Lying James Comey says Hillary “Felonia” Clinton did with classified information, we’d be in a cell using a plastic bag in the toilet to ferment the fruits we smuggled out of the chow hall.

 

Mueller’s appointment is full of conflicts, from his relationship with Hillary Clinton to his close relationship with fired FBI Director James Comey, who deliberately set the special counsel in place with his leaked documents. And both men have accepted millions from the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Crime Syndicate. Their pal, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, helped them set in motion this probe, that has been stacked against President Trump from the beginning, after spending millions of taxpayer dollars, only to find there wasn’t any collusion between President Trump and the Russians, or for that matter, between Russia and any Trump associate.

As noted by Kurt Schlichter, editor at Townhall:

 

“[Lady] Justice is no longer blind. Her blindfold is off and she is picking favorites”

 

No matter how awkward or embarrassing some Americans might view President Trump, the actions of his opponents make them dangerous enemies of the state and America’s public interest. They are the aspiring tyrants, who long to use government agencies full of people with guns to enforce their will, as they circumvent legal statutes and the courts, and abrogate the rule of law; and President Trump must use any power at his disposal, including investigating the investigators, firing and charging them with their known crimes and putting an end to this dismantling of the rule of law, in order to preserve freedom and liberty in America and prevent Her from being forced into a hot civil war.

 

By Justin O. Smith

___________________

Edited by John E. Houk

Source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Leading Up To Leftist Groupthink


John R. Houk

© August 27, 2018

 

Have you ever heard the term Groupthink? Let’s look at some definitions:

 

Merriam Webster:

 

a pattern of thought characterized by self-deception, forced manufacture of consent, and conformity to group values and ethics

 

Wikipedia:

 

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.

 

Groupthink requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the “ingroup” produces an “illusion of invulnerability” (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the “ingroup” significantly overrates its own abilities in decision-making and significantly underrates the abilities of its opponents (the “outgroup“). Furthermore, groupthink can produce dehumanizing actions against the “outgroup”.

 

Antecedent factors such as group cohesiveness, faulty group structure, and situational context (e.g., community panic) play into the likelihood of whether or not groupthink will impact the decision-making process.

 

Groupthink is a construct of social psychology but has an extensive reach and influences literature in the fields of communication studies, political science, management, and organizational theory,[1] as well as important aspects of deviant religious cult behaviour.[2][3]

 

Groupthink is sometimes stated to occur (more broadly) within natural groups within the community, for example to explain the lifelong different mindsets of those with differing political views (such as “conservatism” and “liberalism” in the U.S. political context [4]) or the purported benefits of team work vs. work conducted in solitude.[5] However, this conformity of viewpoints within a group does not mainly involve deliberate group decision-making, and might be better explained by the collective confirmation bias of the individual members of the group.

 

Most of the initial research on groupthink was conducted by Irving Janis, a research psychologist from Yale University.[6] … READ THE REST

 

Psychology Today:

 

What Is Groupthink?

 

Groupthink occurs when a group with a particular agenda makes irrational or problematic decisions because its members value harmony and coherence over accurate analysis and critical evaluation. Individual members of the group are strongly discouraged from any disagreement with the consensus and set aside their own thoughts and feelings to unquestioningly follow the word of the leader and other group members. In a groupthink situation, group members refrain from expressing doubts, judgments or disagreement with the consensus and ignore any ethical or moral consequences of any group decision that furthers their cause. Risk-taking is common, and the lack of creativity and independent thinking have negative personal and political implications for both group members and outsiders. Groupthink decisions rarely have successful outcomes.

 

 

… READ THE REST

 

In fairness, no individual or cohesive group is immune to the negative effects of groupthink. The situation today is America is nearly divided 50/50 between Conservatives and Liberals. The irony is politically Conservatives won the 2016 election cycle, BUT the traditional means of mass communication are dominated by Liberals (aka Leftists, Progressives, Socialists and various degrees of Communists). AND the Liberals are brainwashing their readers, listeners and viewers with Groupthink principles glorifying Liberal principles and values over traditional Conservative moral principles and values.

 

Elizabeth Vaughn tackles the Leftist Groupthink in this essay entitled, “The ‘Groupthink’ of Robert Mueller, Democrats & the Mainstream Media: The New Axis of Evil”.

 

JRH 8/27/18

Please Support NCCR

********************

The ‘Groupthink’ of Robert Mueller, Democrats & the Mainstream Media: The New Axis of Evil

 

The fact that the left has been able to thrust this farce upon the President is nothing short of incredible. It is a textbook example of the contagion of the contagion effect of groupthink. In the meantime, the more obvious and truly criminal offenses of Hillary Clinton and other governmental officials remain unscrutinized.

 

By ELIZABETH VAUGHN 

AUGUST 26, 2018

Freedom Outpost

 

Groupthink is a phenomenon that occurs when a group of people gets together and starts to think collectively with one mind. The group is more concerned with maintaining unity than with objectively evaluating their situation, alternatives and options. The group, as a whole, tends to take irrational actions or overestimate their positions or moral rightness.

 

There have been periods of history when large groups of people, so invested in a particular goal and so convinced of their own righteousness, have collectively lost sight of reality, often with tragic results.

 

The larger the group, the less responsibility individual members will shoulder for their own actions. Responsibility for individual wrongdoing is diffused or “shared” by the members of the group. Because “everyone” takes responsibility, no one ultimately takes responsibility.

 

America’s left, Democratic politicians, the mainstream media and those who receive their news from the mainstream media, have become radicalized over their hatred for Donald Trump. Their unwillingness to accept the result of a fair election directly clashes with the principles upon which America was founded.

 

In the wake of last week’s uproar over former Trump attorney Michael Cohen’s plea deal, I would like to remind them of some of their own vulnerabilities.

 

1. Have you forgotten about the Obama campaign’s offer of $150,000 to Reverend Jeremiah Wright to shut him up during the 2008 campaign? Rev. Wright, whom Obama met in the late 1980s, preached a very incendiary form of Black Liberation Theology. How can we forget the clip of Rev. Wright’s sermon given the Sunday following 9/11 when he said the attacks were payback for all of America’s misdeeds?

 

Ed Klein, in his May 2012 book about Obama’s White House years, entitled “The Amateur,” details his interview with Rev. Wright. Wright revealed that he had received a bribe from a friend of Obama’s during the 2008 campaign.

 

Klein spoke to Sean Hannity when the book was published.

 

What happened is that after ABC’s Brian Ross broadcast the audiotapes –videotapes of the Rev. Wright God damning America and slamming whites and slamming Jews and America, he was contacted by one of Obama’s closest personal friends, a guy who travels on Obama’s plane, who plays basketball with him, who goes on vacations with him.

 

I didn’t name him in the book, but I can tell you who he is. His name is Dr. Eric Whitaker. Dr. Whitaker is the vice president of the University of Chicago Medical Center and he’s a member of Obama’s very tight inner-circle. And he sent an email to a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ [Wright’s church].

 

Whitaker sent an email to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, offering him $150,000 to stay quiet and not do any public speeches until after the election in November 2008.

 

Chicago politics is one hand feeds the other, as you know. And Eric Whitaker, a very close friend of the Obamas, sent an email to a member of the church saying that the Rev. Wright could get $150,000 if he would shut up and not criticize Obama anymore.

 

Then, after Rev. Wright said, ‘no thank you,’ Obama himself paid a personal call on the Rev. Wright. The face-to-face meeting took place in March 2008, 10 days after Obama’s famous “race speech” took place.

 

Now, we know that this is true, not only because the Rev. Wright told me so, but also because the Secret Service logs, logged in this meeting. So we have confirmation that it actually took place.

 

There are no reports of a paper trail for this 2008 payment, but Rev. Wright did indeed shut up. Prior to this bribe, Obama’s association with the anti-American, anti-Semitic pastor nearly sank his campaign. Surely, this provided a benefit to Obama’s campaign.

 

2. It is well known that, when members of Congress are accused of sexual harassment by interns, staffers or anyone else, they can count on a taxpayer-funded “slush fund” to pay for non-disclosure agreements, “hush money,” from their victims.

 

Certainly, these payments provide a benefit to the campaigns of the accused. They also have probably saved several marriages.

 

The online fact-checking website, “Snopes,” considered this question: Did Congress Use a ‘Slush Fund’ to Pay $17 Million to Women They Sexually Harassed? They concluded this was false.

 

Their reasoning may surprise you. The statement is false because the fund is completely legal. It is “not secret” or “utilized for illicit purposes.” So, as long as they are transparent about it, it’s fine.

 

Although there is a U.S. Treasury fund devoted to paying settlements, it is not a “slush fund” which implies it is secret and utilized for illicit purposes. The fund is administered by the Office of Compliance (OOC), which was established in 1995 with the Congressional Accountability Act and is used for the payment of awards and settlements. The OOC is overseen by the House Administration and Senate Rules committees.

 

Unlike a “slush fund” which would be off the books, the fund is a line item and every year its activity can be viewed by the public in Treasury reports.

 

The total amount paid out annually ($17M has been paid out over the last 20 years) is made public, but the specifics of individual transactions remain confidential.

 

Why aren’t taxpayers allowed access to the details? Why are members of Congress allowed privacy while the President is not?

 

3. Why wasn’t the money paid for the dossier by the Hillary Clinton campaign or the DNC that she controlled listed as a campaign contribution? To say that it provided a benefit to the campaign would be a gross understatement. Instead, they ran it through a law firm and billed it as a legal expense.

 

This bogus dossier has become the most consequential political document in recent memory. It has passed through many hands, not the least of which were Bruce Ohr’s. Inquiring minds want to know what role he played in this soap opera. Is it possible that he may have composed portions of it as it is rumored? Why doesn’t the Mueller team schedule a pre-dawn raid on his home and office so we can find out?

 

4. Michael Cohen was Trump’s attorney. When we retain the services of an attorney, an accountant, or any other professional, we state our goal and leave it to the attorney to execute the plan.

 

They are the trained professionals and we are the clients. Most of us don’t question their methods. We assume our lawyers know what they’re doing.

 

If a lawyer makes a mistake, intentionally or otherwise, it is his or her own responsibility. “Well, my client directed me to do it” is not a valid excuse for wrongdoing.

 

And also, because of such a thing as attorney/client privilege, we should feel we can speak frankly to our lawyers. Do we now have to worry that our conversations with lawyers might be recorded?

 

Why wasn’t the office and residence of Hillary Clinton’s attorney or her IT professional raided? Why don’t we try to prosecute some of Hillary’s closest aides? What about the IT employee who tried to bleach bit subpoenaed documents and destroy the hard drive? She was the subject of an FBI investigation. It would have been fair game.

 

Summing Up: 

 

The fact that the left has been able to thrust this farce upon the President is nothing short of incredible. It is a textbook example of the contagion of the contagion effect of groupthink. In the meantime, the more obvious and truly criminal offenses of Hillary Clinton and other governmental officials remain unscrutinized.

 

The only thing that will end it – declassifying the necessary DOJ/FBI documents, unredacted please – is the one thing that Trump has been, so far, reluctant to do. Perhaps he is simply waiting for the right time. Maybe he’s planning an October surprise to achieve maximum impact. I certainly hope so.

 

Elizabeth Vaughn is a conservative political blogger and mom of three residing in southern Connecticut. Following a career in the financial services industry, she is now a regular contributor to Freedom Outpost. Contact her at eliza.vaughn13@gmail.com

______________________

Leading Up To Leftist Groupthink

John R. Houk

© August 27, 2018

_________________________

The ‘Groupthink’ of Robert Mueller, Democrats & the Mainstream Media: The New Axis of Evil

 

Copyright © 2018 FreedomOutpost.com

 

About Freedom Outpost

 

Al Franken accused of kissing, groping LA TV host without consent


I have to wonder if ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN et al Mainstream share this news about Senator Al Franken sexually groping former Fox Sports and Playboy celeb poser Leann Tweeden?

 

JRH 11/16/17

Please Support NCCR

********************

Al Franken accused of kissing, groping LA TV host without consent

 

By Barnini Chakraborty

November 16, 2017

Fox News

 

A California TV host and sports radio broadcaster on Thursday accused Democratic Sen. Al Franken of kissing and groping her without her consent in 2006.

 

Leeann Tweeden posted a blog detailing the alleged incident and also tweeted a picture of what seems to be a grinning Franken standing over her as she sleeps, pretending to grab her breasts.

 

 

 

Franken said he doesn’t remember the kissing incident but apologized for posing for the picture. He said he intended it to be funny — but it wasn’t.

 

“I certainly don’t remember the rehearsal for the skit in the same way, but I send my sincerest apologies to Leeann,” Franken said in an initial statement. “As to the photo, it was clearly intended to be funny but wasn’t. I shouldn’t have done it.”

 

Tweeden says she was disgusted to learn she was groped as she slept (Reuters) 

 

Franken later issued a detailed statement saying there’s “no excuse” and he feels “ashamed,” while also offering to cooperate in an ethics investigation into the matter.

 

“I respect women. I don’t respect men who don’t. And the fact that my own actions have given people a good reason to doubt that makes me feel ashamed,” Franken said. “… I don’t know what was in my head when I took that picture, and it doesn’t matter. There’s no excuse.”

 

He added, “I am asking that an ethics investigation be undertaken, and I will gladly cooperate.”

 

Tweeden said the abuse took place during a USO Tour in Afghanistan.

 

The radio host came forward in a shocking open letter on blog (Reuters)

 

Franken, a former writer for “Saturday Night Live,” wrote a sketch for the tour in which his character kisses hers on stage. He was an Air America radio host at the time of the incident. He was elected ot the U.S. Senate in 2008.

 

Tweeden said Franken repeatedly pressured her to practice the kiss backstage and at one point forcibly kissed her.

 

“I immediately pushed him away with both of my hands against his chest and told him if he ever did that to me again I wouldn’t be so nice about it the next time,” she wrote. “I walked away. All I could think about was getting to a bathroom as fast as possible to rinse the taste of him out of my mouth.”

 

Tweeden said she felt “disgusted and violated” – and that the abuse didn’t stop there.

 

A photographer, who was with them on their C-17 cargo plane ride back home, snapped a picture of what looks to be a sleeping Tweeden, still wearing her flak vest and Kevlar helmet, and a grinning Franken appearing to grab her breasts.

 

“I couldn’t believe it,” she wrote. “He groped me, without my consent, while I was asleep. I felt violated all over again. Embarrassed. Belittled. Humiliated. How dare anyone grab my breasts like this and think it’s funny?”

 

Tweeden said she thinks Franken asked someone to take the photo “knowing I would see it later, and be ashamed.”

 

The accusations against Franken come on the heels of an avalanch of allegations out of Capitol Hill on sexual harassment and gender hostility. Multiple incidents out of D.C. and other state houses have shed light on the dificulties [sic] victims facewhen trying to report their accusers.

 

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the Ethics Committee should review the matter.

 

“I hope the Democratic Leader will join me on this,” McConnell wrote in a statement. “Regardless of party, harassment and assault are completely unacceptable – in the workplace or anywhere else.”

 

About 1,500 former Capitol Hill aides have signed an open letter to House and Senate leaders demanding that Congress put in place mandatory harassment training. They’re also calling to revamp the Office of Compliance, a small office that deals with these complaints and that few knew even existed.

 

Fox News’ Brooke Singman contributed to this report. 

_________________

©2017 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.

 

Blog Editor: I read this Fox post with the proviso posted one hour ago. Hence, if you check the link, there is a good chance of future editing. 

 

The 9th Court Usurps Power!


Richard Clifton, Michelle Friedland, and William Canby.
Richard Clifton, Michelle Friedland, and William Canby.

9th Circuit Appellate Justices Richard Clifton, Michelle Friedland, and William Canby.

 

Justin Smith reasoning demonstrates the hypocrisy and idiocy of the American Left’s rabid reaction to President Trump temporarily banning immigration and refugees from seven nations that Islamic terrorism is a hotbed of death.

 

JRH 2/14/17

Please Support NCCR

**************

The 9th Court Usurps Power!

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 2/13/2017 7:19 AM

 

President Trump doesn’t need to issue any new travel ban order, that may or may not please the anti-American activist judges of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal or other supporters of Islam and Sharia law (see Justice Elena Kagan’s tenure at Harvard University), open borders and international communism in the Supreme Court and within America’s own population. His original order was well within the U.S. Constitution and the law, and, in order to stop this current intrusion on the President’s authority in areas of foreign policy and national security, a usurpation of power and a judicial coup d’état, President Trump should defy the 9th Court and set to work with the Republican majority and any agreeable Democrats to limit the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution and reclaim stolen legislative powers for Congress.

 

It has universally been acknowledged for over 230 years that the President, the United States Commander-in-Chief, has broad authority and great leeway in all matters of immigration and foreign policy and national security [Judge Napolitano & NRO], which places the recent ruling of leftist activist judges Michelle Friedland (Obama appointee) and William Canby Jr. (Carter appointee) on par with an act of treason. These two judges are so willing to give President Trump a political black eye, allowing Trump’s “Muslim ban” campaign statements to be used in the evaluation of his executive order, that they have ignored the law, circumvented the Constitution and violated the separation of powers clause between coequal branches of government; and, they have blatantly dismissed the reality  of refugees, who can’t prove who they are and whether or not they have any ties to Islamic terrorist groups, while allowing district judge James Robart, another leftist activist judge (notwithstanding being a Bush appointee), to absurdly overrule the President of the United States on border security during wartime.

 

There is not any manner of violation against the U.S. Constitution and the 1965 Immigration Act in President Trump’s travel ban. Trump isn’t discriminating against anyone, but rather, he is looking at seven nations from a security threat assessment, which were already determined to be state sponsors of terror by former President Obama and his advisors, addressed in Section 1187 (a) (12) of an Obama-era provision of the immigration law.

 

And also in his executive order, President Trump expressly cites 1182 (f), enacted in 1952, which states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such time as he may deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants … “. [Blog Editor: bold-italics is Editor’s]

 

In 1893, America was detaining approximately 20 percent of all hopeful immigrants reaching Ellis Island, due to sickness and disabilities, and anarchists and the insane were automatically rejected [Blog Editor: History.com point 4-  Immigrants were subject to physical and mental exams to ensure they were fit for admittance to the United States]. About two percent of these immigrants were judged unfit to become U.S. citizens and sent home on the next ship. By the 1920s, our government established quotas based on nationality and skill. And the majority of Americans have always understood that just like anyone has the right to decide who enters their home, so too, our nation has that same sovereign right.

 

No “moral obligation” to these refugees exists that can compel us to allow them to enter without knowing for certain who they are. The moral obligation to open our doors, often mentioned by the Leftists and International Communists, doesn’t mean America must throw reason and caution to the wind.

 

People who do not share our values — Islamofascists seeking to reach America’s shores and murder Americans — and anti-American “refugees” seeking to transform America into a Balkanized hell are not welcome here.

 

Why weren’t all of these anti-American leftist judges evoking Emma Lazarus and Lady Liberty lifting her lamp “beside the golden door” when President Clinton sent little 6 year old Elian Gonzalez back to a communist dictatorship in Cuba, under the executive branch’s broad power? Or when President Obama turned away real refugees fleeing Castro’s oppression “yearning to breathe free“? [Blog Editor: See Also Breitbart & 100% Fed Up]

 

America doesn’t have to destroy its cultural identity by helping foreigners, but this is precisely what Democrat commie bastards such as President Johnson and Senator Ted Kennedy intended to accomplish through the 1965 Immigration Act. This one law has eroded our cultural identity severely and created extremely detrimental demographic changes over time. And most recently, former President Obama specifically brought in one million immigrants from Muslim majority countries like Kosovo, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan, even though these countries were the origin of terrorists that have already attacked America.

 

Many of America’s “progressive” Leftists consider the destruction of America, as we know it, to be a desirable goal, however, most Americans reject their fundamental change. Americans who love this country want a strong America, that will be able to defeat the dangerous ideologies currently threatening Western Civilization.

 

Rebuke the disingenuous pious progressives who decry those of us supporting the President’s executive order as anti-immigrant and issue flowery utterances on sanctuary, when sanctuary is for the truly persecuted innocents, like the Christians in the Middle East. Exercising our first responsibility to protect ourselves and Our Beloved America bears no shame.

 

Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ala) stated that Trump’s executive order was “plainly legal” under both statute and the Constitution, adding: “No foreigner has a constitutional right to enter the United States and courts ought not second-guess sensitive national security decisions of the President. This misguided ruling is from the 9th Circuit, the most notoriously left-wing court in America and the most reversed court at the Supreme Court.

 

Representative Mo Brooks (R-Ala) said, “Unfortunately, American lives are at risk until this unfounded and reckless [9th Court restraining] order is reversed by the Supreme Court.”

 

How can Americans trust unreliable and corrupt courts with our national security? The Supreme Court ruled Obamacare to be both constitutional and a tax, after Obama called it a “penalty” for years. The courts have overturned the will of ‘We the People’ in numerous referendums and centuries of traditions and hundreds of state and federal laws, so that they could manufacture non-existent rights to abortion and deviant, perverse homosexual “marriage” [coupling], rights that cannot and never will be found in Madison’s Constitution.

 

Judges and justices are not empowered by the Constitution to make U.S. law or govern the nation. Those duties fall solely to Congress and the President.

 

Pat Buchanan observed on February 10th that President Andrew Jackson defied Chief Justice John Marshall’s “prohibition” against moving the Cherokee Indians across the Mississippi and to the western frontier. He also noted President Lincoln considered sending U.S. troops to arrest Chief Justice Roger Taney, when Taney declared Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional.

 

President Trump must simply defy U.S. District Judge Robart’s overly broad and illegal restraining order, upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal. He must order Homeland Security and his State Department and Justice Department to continue executing his executive order which is in accordance with the U.S. Constitution and existing law, because his act is a rare and righteous moment in this war against terrorism, the Islamofascists, the Radical Left of America and the International Communists, who seek our demise. And a Constitutional crisis is much preferred over more murdered innocent Americans.

 

By Justin O. Smith

_____________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text embraced by brackets and source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

%d bloggers like this: