Thx 4 follow. I ask everyone 2 read my free book on our website, "The Real Communist Plot", at: http://PatriotsVotingCoalition.weebly.com or at least listen 2 my interview, link there also, with the CHEEF REPORT on same issue. November will be their big move & we need to be informed/ready. Earl
All Posts (29750)
.
Wells Fargo Resists the Resistance on Guns
Wells Fargo took a brave stand against such efforts. So, naturally, the American Federation of Teachers has decided to boycott Wells Fargo. Of course, we all know how the FBI failed to pass on actionable tips that the Parkland school killer. Or how the bumbling Broward County Sheriff’s Office didn’t act despite numerous calls involving the shooter. Never mind the school resource officer who showed an unconscionable yellow streak. The teachers union is covering for all that incompetence and instead scapegoating the law-abiding Americans exercising their Second Amendment rights.
This is part of a pattern that is going to force the Right to do some serious re-thinking. We may very well win court victories affirming the right to own semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15 in the next decade. But if the Left convinces banks to close the accounts of anyone who makes or sells the AR-15 to law-abiding citizens, then we have a problem. In essence, we will have the legal right to buy an AR-15, but banks will shut down sales. It won’t stop there — the Left will push credit card companies to act as well. In essence, buying any gun the Left wants banned could become a cash-only business.
The Left is trying to gain in the corporate boardrooms what it cannot get through legislation or the courts. This was done before, albeit back then, they used the power of the federal government with Operation Chokepoint — one of Barack liar-nObama’s “pen and phone” attacks on our rights. Operation Chokepoint failed between a combination of the sunlight of a free press and action by lawmakers.
Chokepoint II, the sequel, though, is going to be much harder to fight. Part of it will have to be with a carrot and stick approach to companies. Despite Wells Fargo’s other misdeeds, it is taking the right stand on the Second Amendment, and it should be supported in that — with our dollars if possible. The second extraordinary measure may be to pass legislation that prohibits banks and financial institutions from engaging in discrimination against entities for either the sale of a legal product or for exercising their constitutional rights.
The threat to our rights is extraordinary. If the Left can get banks to cut off FFLs who don’t meet certain conditions, other rights will fall. Imagine if the Supreme Court sides with free speech in the Masterpiece Cakeshop and NIFLA cases — and the Left then pressures banks to close accounts of businesses or crisis pregnancy centers. Do you think they will stop there, or will they reinforce those successes? The time to act is now.
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/55515-wells-fargo-resists-the-resistance-on-guns
Progressive Ideology Trumps Student Safety
“Two months after a massacre in Parkland made security the top focus in Broward County schools, many parents and students say the school district is doing too little to ensure safety,” the Sun-Sentinel reports. “An emotionally charged school security forum at Plantation High drew hundreds who complained about what they saw as an ineffective response by the school district both before and after the Feb. 14 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas” that claimed 17 lives.
Those who expected genuine school security following the massacre have a lot to learn about the progressive mindset. On the first day back from spring break, clear backpacks and ID lanyards were issued to students, and police officers were stationed at the four doors students were allowed to enter. Band instruments and sports equipment were turned over to teachers and coaches, non-clear back packs were confiscated, and a number of bags were searched.
All well and good, but an essential element was apparently a bridge too far: neither metal-detecting wands or metal detectors are part of the equation. “It feels like being punished,” Principal Ty Thompson complained. “It feels like jail, being checked every time we go to school.”
That a “jail” is preferable to a slaughterhouse apparently eludes Thompson.
Moreover, the clear back pack requirement is apparently devolving into the farce it always was. Some students have added non-clear liners to them, and others have placed sheets of paper in them with the words “clear backpacks are stupid,” or “this backpack is probably worth more than my life.” Several students have criticized the lack of privacy, and female students are embarrassed by being forced to display feminine products they’d rather keep under wraps.
Michael Dorn, executive director of the non-profit campus safety organization Safe Havens International, gets to the heart of the Left’s absurd determination to promote a feel-good solution in lieu of real security. “They take a book and hollow it out and put a gun in the book,” he explained. “This is not an anomaly. It’s a repeatedly used method. They buy all of these different containers and put the gun in there, or they put it in a tennis shoe or wrap the gun in their gym shorts. They get a rifle and put it in a musical instrument case.”
Moreover, as senior student and forum attendee Angelina Lazo implied, despite the massive failures evinced by the Broward Sheriff’s Office (BSO) during the shooting, little has changed. “Why do we have clear backpacks if they aren’t being enforced?” she asked. “Why do we have BSO everywhere if they aren’t doing their job and just seem to be hanging around our campus?”
Not just hanging around. Just over a month after the shooting, Deputy Moises Carotti was suspended for falling asleep in his patrol car while on duty. “Of all the schools in America, you would think this would be the safest one right now,” declared Sen. Marco Rubio at the time. “This is so outrageous it’s almost impossible to believe.”
Is it? We may soon find out. Last Wednesday, Broward Circuit Judge Jeffrey Levenson ordered the release of a redacted version of the footage captured by exterior cameras at Marjory Stoneman the day of the shooting.
The Broward County School Board and the Broward State Attorney’s Office had sought to block the release. The Board insisted it would weaken school security, and the Attorney’s Office contended the tapes were part of an ongoing criminal investigation and might present problems with regard to the prosecution of the murderer. Levenson decided otherwise, noting the video is not part of an active investigation and that the “potential harm” to Stoneman’s security measures are “outweighed by the strong public interest in disclosure.” The BSO has until May 2 to appeal the ruling.
Whether the tapes will reveal anything as damning as former school resource officer Scot Peterson’s refusal to enter the school while the massacre was taking place remains to be seen. Nonetheless, the failure of the Broward County Sheriff’s Department, headed by political hack Scot Israel, is beyond dispute.
So is Israel’s ongoing arrogance, for which he is facing a historic no-confidence vote from the union representing his own deputies. When asked by reporter Bob Norman whether he lied when he asserted that Peterson was the only deputy at the school — despite radio transmissions by his own department revealing the presence of three other deputies — Israel told Norman he was disappointed by the newsman’s “constant reporting” and “misrepresentations.”
That exchange took place in late March, just prior to Israel’s visit to the Weston Democratic Club — where he “blamed partisan Republican politics for the criticism against his agency,” as ABC News characterized it.
If one wishes to address charges of partisan politics, one need look no further than the Democrat/Media Complex’s lionization of Parkland students advocating gun-control and blaming the NRA for something it had nothing to do with, and compare it to the equally-orchestrated marginalization of their pro-Second Amendment peers. Even Barack liar-nObama got in on the act, asserting that if Parkland students (along with Dreamers and Black Lives Matter activists) “make their elders uncomfortable, that’s how it should be.”
If anyone should feel uncomfortable, it’s Obama. A bombshell exposé by Paul Sperry reveals the former president’s efforts to racialize school discipline standards — eagerly embraced by Broward County school officials and the sheriff’s office in the form of the PROMISE program — has engendered the “highest percentage of ‘the most serious, violent [and] chronic’ juvenile offenders in Florida, according to the county’s chief juvenile probation officer,‘” Sperry writes.
Nonetheless, when the PROMISE program was criticized by Broward student Kenneth Preston at the April 10 meeting of the Broward County School Board, Superintendent Robert Runcie characterized the attempt to connect it to the shooting as “reprehensible.”
Not nearly as reprehensible as the action taken by the Board itself. In response to the shooting, the state established the Coach Aaron Feis Guardian Program, named after the hero football coach who died while protecting students. It allocated $67 million statewide for training and payments enabling certain school employees to be armed. The Board unanimously voted to decline participation.
Adding insult to injury, the Board and Runcie decided to leave the PROMISE program in place. “We’re not going to dismantle a program in this district that is serving and helping kids appropriately because of news that is not fact-based,” he said.
According to the federal Centers for Disease Control, weapons possession, fighting, bullying and attempted suicide all rose for Broward high schools between 2013 and 2015. Additionally, state data reveal that Broward County has the highest level of weapons-related incidents in South Florida.
Those are the facts. Thus, while the progressive clarion calls for gun control remain front and center, and the race-based PROMISE program that shields minority student miscreants remains in place, all students ultimately remain as vulnerable as they ever were.
At the meeting, Runcie insisted changes to the status quo are “not going to happen overnight.”
Really? Why not? ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/55511-progressive-ideology-trumps-student-safety
Kim's Latest Olive Branch: No More Nuclear Tests
“North Korea has agreed to suspend all Nuclear Tests and close up a major test site,” Trump said publicly. “This is very good news for North Korea and the World — big progress! Look forward to our Summit.” Privately, however, Trump says he’ll believe it when he sees it. After all, the Kim family dictatorship has a long history of making promises only to break them, and Kim’s express purpose up until now was developing weapons capable of striking the U.S.
Kim is set to meet South Korean President Moon Jae-in next week and with President Donald Trump sometime in May or June. The latter meeting was announced on the same day Trump laid out his plan for steel tariffs that would hit China. Coincidence? Nope.
There is no doubt that apparent concessions by North Korea are in response to punitive sanctions issued last fall and, more recently, to Trump’s tariffs. Trade negotiations between the U.S. and China are indeed about unfair economic practices on the part of Beijing, but they’re also about convincing China to rein in North Korea. Progress may indeed be happening, even if Kim’s announcement is simply meant to keep talks on track for the time being.
Kim surely hopes that some olive branches will do the trick without having to abandon his nuclear program entirely. But one thing we’re fairly confident of: Trump won’t be making any liar-nObama-Iran deals. He won’t win a Nobel Peace Prize either. ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/55513-kims-latest-olive-branch-no-more-nuclear-tests
by Thomas Gallatin
.
.
{ independentsentinel.com } ~ Totalitarianism is here. Stalinism is here. Our Bill of Rights is under attack each and every day... Bill O’Reilly has an article up on his website worth reading about this very issue and it’s titled, ‘The Stalinists Are Here‘. They are here and have been here for decades. The Totalitarians are everywhere around us and they have already taken to force and violence. In his article, O’Reilly brings up several examples. One was a recent incident with the CEO of Apple, Tim Cook, a liberal man himself. The Stalinists told him to pull the National Rifle Association’s video channel from Apple’s streaming platform or he would suffer consequences. He courageously refused and reportedly said, “Democracy without discourse is not a democracy.” We are a Constitutional Republic....
Jackasses Bray Again: DNC Suing Trump Campaign
Trump responded, “Just heard the Campaign was sued by the Obstructionist Democrats. This can be good news in that we will now counter for the DNC Server that they refused to give to the FBI, the Debbie Wasserman Schultz Servers and Documents held by the Pakistani mystery man and liar-Clinton Emails.”
Trump’s campaign manager, Brad Parscale, called the lawsuit a “sham … filed by a desperate, dysfunctional, and nearly insolvent Democrat Party.” He added, “With the Democrats’ conspiracy theories against the President’s campaign evaporating as quickly as the failing DNC’s fundraising, they’ve sunk to a new low to raise money, especially among small donors who have abandoned them.” Parscale also said that he would be working aggressively to uncover DNC corruption if the lawsuit were not immediately dismissed.
But the DNC’s ignoble lawsuit hasn’t earned the ire of just Republicans — many commie-Bernie Sanders supporters responded negatively as well. Tim Canova, a commie-Sanders supporter who challenged Wasserman Schultz in her 2016 primary, stated, “They [DNC] still haven’t done a postmortem of why they lost the election, because the explanation for everything is Russia.” He also astutely noted, “They were losing midterm elections before anything got hacked.”
Ironically, the DNC believes that ignoring both the voice of the people via the 2016 election results and the facts will constitute a winning formula for convincing voters that they are working to “save democracy.” Do they even know what that word means? (Never mind the fact that the U.S. is a constitutional republic, whose representatives are democratically elected.) Since the moment of Trump’s election victory, Democrats and their cohorts in the mainstream media have been incessantly beating the drum of a supposed Trump/Russia collusion conspiracy with no supporting evidence to justify the charge. Even Robert Mueller’s special investigation, ostensibly initiated to investigate Russian collusion, now appears to have given up on that narrative and instead looks to be angling for an obstruction case. This smells of the desperation of an organization that has run out of any constructive ideas and has instead relegated itself to the proverbial peanut gallery. ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/55518-jackasses-bray-again-dnc-suing-trump-campaign
Be sure to Click LIKE at the bottom of this article, and share it everywhere!!
By Craig Andresen – Right Side Patriots on American Political Radio
It’s no secret that liberals are really socialists, and that some actually have crossed over to being full-on co
mmunists. We all know that.
It’s also no secret that the overwhelming vast majority of all liberals, be they garden variety, socialists or communists, are also idiots.
Nobody with a working brain cell is going to argue with that assessment.
Liberals will argue that assessment, but that pretty well proves my point, doesn’t it?
The problem is that abject idiots have completely taken over the democrat party, our education system, the bulk of the mainstream media, and in some cases, elements of our judicial system. In fact, abject liberal idiots are now mentoring future idiots, indoctrinating them in the ways of idiocy, and raising idiotic behavior to an art form.
{ independentsentinel.com } ~ Colluders are running free and appear to be behind a massive conspiracy to take down the President... It’s not really about Trump in the end. It’s a war between right and left and the left will do anything to win the election they will not concede was lost. Newly-uncovered texts between FBI officials Peter Strzok and his lover Lisa Page “strongly suggest” coordination between high-ranking officials at the liar-nObama White House, CIA, FBI, Justice Department and former Senate Democratic leadership right from the beginning of the Trump-Russia collusion set up. In the least, the liar-nObama White House was briefed by the FBI and others about the probe of the Trump campaign. There are so many actors in the drama, it’s hard to keep it all straight. In this article, we are discussing three of them....
by William L. Gensert
{ americanthinker.com } ~ The American people have turned against Robert Mueller, and that’s the least of his problems.
Late on the Friday afternoon of February 16, 2018, Mueller indicted 13 Russians for such heinous crimes as creating fake identities on Facebook and Twitter and organizing rallies, both for and against Donald Trump, as well as spending more than $100,000 on political ads -- all this, for the purpose of interfering with the United States Presidential Election -- keep in mind, not a single indicted person will ever see the inside of an American courtroom since there is no extradition treaty between our country and Russia.
After almost a year of investigating, that’s all he had: fake Twitter and Facebook accounts, some minor rallies and a paltry sum spent on political advertising. The left went bananas ululating at the top of their lungs:
“Smoking gun!” “Smoking gun!”
It was the first time in years anyone on the left supported guns! Progressives and their adjuncts, the mainstream media, made it out to be a big deal, but for those of us looking closely, it smacked of desperation.
What has he done lately?
Well, there was…
And then, there is…
Actually, he did ask Rod Rosenstein to give a referral to Southern District of New York U.S. Attorney's Office for a warrant to search the office, home, and pied-à-terre of Michael Cohen. For Mueller, this was an attempt to distance himself from what many see as an abrogation of attorney/client privilege.
Yet, it was something he needed to do, because if he can’t turn Cohen, he’s beginning to realize he has nothing -- and there is the added advantage that “taint” team or no “taint” team, every single damaging thing found in those raids will either be leaked to him or leaked to the press.
Well, not “nothing,” he does have loads of prosecutable crimes committed by key liar-nObama administration figures including the big man himself, liar-Clinton camp figures, FBI agents, active, retired, and terminated, especially, James “the bitch is back” Comey.
In fact, the more Mueller investigates Trump, the more he discovers crimes committed by the people who engineered his own appointment as well as his ideological brethren.
It was a shrewd, if underhanded, move by the special counsel, even if it was a Hail Mary. It looked as if he might finally be able to force someone to tell him what he wanted to hear.
Then, it happened. Donald Trump granted a pardon to Scooter Libby, who was the chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney during the George W. Bush administration.
In 2007, Libby was convicted of perjury as a result of the investigation into the leaking of CIA officer Valerie Plame’s identity. President Bush commuted Libby's 30-month sentence but didn’t grant a pardon. Libby’s alleged crimes happened a decade ago and according to the Washington Post:
“Cheney’s chief of staff Scooter Libby was dealt a severe injustice by prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald who knew early on that another official, Richard Armitage, had leaked Valerie Plame’s name. Fitzgerald asserted that Libby had lied to prosecutors rather than mistakenly recalled a phone call with now-deceased reporter Tim Russert. The case should never have gone forward or, if it had, a memory expert should have been permitted to testify, and President George W. Bush should have granted Libby a full pardon before leaving office.”
Why is that significant to Mueller and his investigation?
As the venerable Andrew C. McCarthy has pointed out, the warrant to search Cohen’s offices and homes would probably not been approved had the only crime been a violation of campaign contribution laws the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels to keep quiet about the one night stand she had with the president more than a decade ago, which almost always involve only a return of the donations and a fine, with no jail time. There must have been evidence of other, more significant crimes. As of today, we don’t know what those crimes might be, but it wouldn’t be out of hand to assume they involve potentially substantial prison sentences.
Mueller is smart, because there aren’t many men Cohen’s age, with his money, who would be willing to do time to prevent Donald Trump’s impeachment.
Most would probably say anything to avoid a five, ten, or even twenty-year prison sentence -- even something untrue.
Trump’s pardon of Libby was brilliant. It sent Cohen a message that he wasn’t going to go to jail. If the president was willing to pardon someone who worked for Dick Cheney, probably the man most hated by those on the left and the media, at least until Donald Trump came along, he would pardon Cohen as well.
The Libby pardon took all the air out of Mueller’s attempt to “turn” Cohen. I would have loved to be in the room when Mueller got the news -- time to hit the Johnny Walker Black heavy or beat his dog or something.
If anything, it shows Mueller that Donald Trump is a different kind of Republican. I like Mitt Romney and I think he would have made a decent president, certainly better than Barack liar-nObama, who admittedly set the bar low. Yet, does anyone believe Romney would play dirty like Mueller plays? Or would he fold his hand and accept impeachment rather than fight?
Then something else happened. Rudy Giuliani joined Team Trump.
Trump and Giuliani together are an entirely different animal; they won’t give up; they will fight to the death. Throw in Inspector General Horowitz’s investigation the report will drop in May and U.S. Attorney John Huber’s criminal investigation of the FBI with grand jury power, as well as the public tiring of his witch-hunt, and Mueller must realize he is not on the winning side and unless he has evidence of something criminal on Trump -- and after almost a year that doesn’t seem likely -- he can’t possibly win. In fact, he must be wondering whether many of his witnesses are about to be charged with crimes themselves.
I think Mueller realizes this and has had enough. He’s a smart guy and I think he understands it is time to cut his losses and salvage whatever is left of his reputation.
.
.
.
by Cal Thomas
{ townhall.com } ~ "It's a modern changing world
Everything is moving fast.
But when it comes to love I like
What they did in the past." -- The Everly Brothers, 1962
Call me old-fashioned -- and I've been called worse -- but do I sense the possible end to the sexual revolution, which exploded in the '60s and whose fallout continues today.
Women complain that men won't commit, whether in a dating relationship or marriage. The #MeToo stories that have emerged since the exposure of Harvey Weinstein's alleged sexual harassment of numerous women in Hollywood have also contributed to their frustration. Harassment victims feel used and abused by men who, apparently, were never taught that women are co-equals in the human race and thus deserving of respect, even honor. I know, that last part sounds old-fashioned.
New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd has written about a new book by Joanna Coles, chief content officer of Hearst magazines and the former editor of Cosmopolitan and Marie Claire, titled "Love Rules." The book focuses on avoiding unhealthy relationships in the digital age.
Coles spoke to Dowd about the young women she knows who feel "obligated" to have sex with men they don't particularly like and what appears to be a growing "disillusionment with the hookup culture" at Middlebury College, as expressed by Leah Fessler in an article for the website Quartz.
What especially intrigued me about Dowd's column was this line from Coles: "No one wants to go back to sock hops and going steady, but to attempt to separate emotions from sex is not only illogical, given that emotion intensely augments pleasure, but also impossible for almost all women."
As a product of the sock hop and going steady generation I rise to its defense.
So, "no one" wants to return to a system that largely prevented the emotional, relational and, yes, physical problems encountered by modern lifestyles? Isn't it the very definition of "insanity" when one expects different results while repeating the same behavior?
There were certain "rules," way back when, about how men should treat women though Hugh Hefner would later blow them up. The rules mostly worked for people who conformed to them. Yes, I know women experienced other problems then.
The societal wreckage caused by the hookup culture, easy divorce and co-habitation without commitment doesn't need studies, though there have been some, chiefly by the late Judith Wallerstein, who spent 25 years studying the effects of divorce on children. She ultimately found that the pain from their parents' breakup continued to cause them distress well into adulthood.
Common sense and experience also reveal certain things about human relationships, which work best and which don't, especially for women, who mostly bear the burden when men don't "love, honor and cherish" them until death they do part. For those of a certain age, that's what couples used to pledge to each other when they married.
Dowd quotes Coles as saying modern sex is "bleak." It doesn't have to be. Millennials would do well to consult their old-fashioned and long-married grandparents. Or they can put on a "Golden Oldies" radio station and hear Don and Phil Everly sing:
"I'm the kind who loves only one
So the boys say I'm old fashioned.
Let them laugh, honey I don't mind.
I've made plans for a wedding day for you and me.
That's old fashioned.
That's the way love should be."
.
.
{ foxbusiness.com } ~ House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes said Sunday his review of FBI and Justice Department “electronic communication” documents shows... no intelligence was used to begin the investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election. “We now know that there was no official intelligence that was used to start this investigation. We know that Sidney Blumenthal and others were pushing information into the State Department. So we’re trying to piece all that together and that’s why we continue to look at the State Department,” Nunes told Maria Bartiromo on “Sunday Morning Futures.” Nunes, R-Calif., cited the Five Eyes agreement as a way of knowing no intel was used. The U.S., along with Canada, the U.K., Australia and New Zealand, make up the “Five Eyes,” or countries that share intelligence in a more-trusted fashion than other arrangements, like NATO, particularly due to years of trust and a common language... https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/no-official-intel-used-to-start-fbi-probe-into-trump-campaign-russia-collusion-rep-nunes.
by David Limbaugh
{ cnsnews.com } ~ I originally assumed that former FBI Director James Comey is an honorable and truthful man who was striving to be objective and avoid undue political influence. He has earned my change of mind.
Our law enforcement and judicial institutions should operate, to the extent possible, above politics to ensure equal justice under the law.
The term "justice is blind" is more than a cliche. Justice, by definition, must be administered impartially, without regard to wealth, power, gender, race, religion or any other special status. The law must guide the judicial system, from start to finish — from the decision to indict to the verdict of guilt or acquittal.
Comey presents himself as a consummate professional, a moral paragon, dedicated to the law and consciously above rank political concerns. He has systematically undermined this carefully crafted image with his unseemly forays into the public arena, his professional decisions, his public statements, his book and his interviews.
FBI officials and agents I've met have always been highly professional, discreet and circumspect — so close to the vest that they won't even share with friends information pertaining to ongoing investigations. They want to make clear that they operate with no favoritism and that their allegiance is to justice and the law.
I assumed Comey would be no different. He initially projected a patina of professionalism, as we witnessed during parts of his news conference in which he announced he wouldn't prosecute liar-Hillary Clinton and during his congressional testimony. He came off as consciously committed to operating above the political fray and following the law.
As his news conference unfolded, it became obvious that he was trying to be all things to all people, but instead of pleasing everyone, he alienated most. He meticulously documented the litany of damning facts against liar-Clinton as if he were presenting a closing argument to a jury. But then he essentially told us that none of that mattered because she hadn't intended to break the law. My BS antenna started sending me strong signals, which were later confirmed when consulting the relevant statutes. He couldn't have laid out a better case for gross negligence and even willful criminal behavior, yet he chose to characterize her actions as noncriminal. If this weren't bad enough, we later learned that he drafted a statement clearing liar-Clinton of charges two months before the FBI interviewed her in its probe. His twisting the law into a pretzel to avoid prosecuting liar-Clinton screams that political considerations were paramount and superseded any legal analysis.
Moreover, Comey admitted in his interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos that he factored the likelihood ofliar-Clinton's winning the election into his decision to publicly announce reopening her email investigation, fearing that she would immediately become an illegitimate president. He might as well have just worn a sign into his interview reading "political animal."
Comey's decision to write a tell-all book about an ongoing investigation on which he was the senior investigator and for which he could be a witness was abominable. It has gravely diminished him and the FBI, and it has contradicted his claim that he is concerned with protecting the image and integrity of the bureau. I doubt that Comey would have ever been appointed to such a position in the FBI had people known he was the type to air dirty laundry and share inside information on matters that demand discretion. Indeed, many current and former colleagues are recoiling with disdain.
Some of Comey's statements in the book and interviews were particularly inappropriate. His duty of professionalism didn't end when he left office. His comments on Donald Trump's appearance were especially petty, more fitting for a teenage Twitter thread than from a former high-ranking law enforcement official.
Even worse was his reckless opinion to Stephanopoulos that it's "possible" that Trump obstructed justice, even though he admitted there is no evidence. Then there were his gratuitous statements that the Russians may have something on Trump and that it's possible the alleged incident involving prostitutes in a Moscow hotel room happened. How could anyone watch that interview and still respect Comey's intellectual honesty?
Free speech guarantees certainly apply to this publicity hound, but they don't insulate him from our reasoned opinion that he has no business saying Trump behaved like a mob boss or that he is morally unfit to serve.
Comey's conduct in this affair has been disgraceful. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein concluded that he made "serious mistakes," that he won't admit his mistakes and that both Democrats and Republicans called for his termination. Former attorneys general, judges and lead prosecutors believe that Comey violated his duty to preserve, protect and defend the FBI. He violated Justice Department policies and tradition. And he leaked four memos, at least one of which was classified, to a friend for publication instead of turning them over to investigators.
I suspect that Comey began writing this book expecting financial profit and professional and personal vindication. I'm afraid he'll have to settle for the big bucks alone. I would feel sorry for him if he weren't so sanctimonious.
https://patriotpost.us/articles/55519-monday-top-headlines
.
.
{ freedomsback.com } ~ There have been a lot of questions about why Trump fired James Comey, ever since he announced to NBC’s Lester Holt — incomprehensibly — that it was his decision, citing, by my count, at least a half-dozen different reasons.
On Sunday night, that question was answered. We all owe a debt of gratitude to Comey for showing the American people why he was so badly in need of firing.
Interviewed on his new book, “A Higher Loyalty,” it quickly became apparent that one of Comey’s favorite formulations is: I honestly never thought these words would come out of my mouth, but I don’t know whether so-and-so sodomized a chicken. It’s possible. I don’t know.
Here he is on ABC News, accusing Trump of hiring prostitutes to urinate on a hotel bed in Moscow possibly — I don’t know:
“I honestly never thought these words would come out of my mouth, but I don’t know whether the current president of the United States was with prostitutes peeing on each other in Moscow in 2013. It’s possible, but I don’t know.”
And here he is on ABC accusing Trump of colluding with Russia:
“More words I never thought I’d utter about a president of the United States — but it’s possible that he is compromised by Russia. It is stunning, and I wish I wasn’t saying it, but it’s just — it’s the truth. … It’s possible.”
And here he is being interviewed by USA Today on Russian influence:
“I don’t know if President Trump has been compromised by the Russians. And these are words I never thought would come out of my mouth about an American president, but it’s possible. I’m not saying it’s likely, I don’t know, and the honest answer is it’s possible.”
None of this says anything about the president. It tells us only that Comey has a low opinion of Trump, which I already knew.
But ABC’s George Stephanopoulos replied to one of Comey’s “it’s possible” formulations, saying: “That’s stunning. You can’t say for certain that the president of the United States is not compromised by the Russians?”
It’s not “stunning.” It’s a sleight of hand. Ask me to give you my odds that Hillary Clinton eats small children for breakfast. IT’S STUNNING! COULTER SAYS 1 PERCENT CHANCE!
HERE’S ANOTHER: I honestly never thought these words would come out of my mouth, but I can’t say that James Comey was not a transvestite prostitute in Laredo, Texas, for 20 years, turning tricks at $5 a customer. I cannot say that. It’s possible.
Comey says that based on his years of experience in “the criminal investigation business,” the fact that the prostitute story bothered Trump so much suggested that it was true.
“Trump’s continuing focus on it surprised me,” he said. “When someone constantly brings up to deny something you’re not asking about, that’s an interesting fact. I think I put in the book the proverb, ‘Only the guilty flee where no man pursues.’ And so that struck me.”
1) Bringing up the prostitute story a handful of times hardly constitutes a neurotic fixation. CNN has brought it up 1,583,749,996 times. Trump has brought up the size of his inaugural crowd more frequently.
2) I don’t find it particularly suspicious that someone would be obsessed with the one accusation that could do him the most damage. Name one other thing in the dossier that anyone knows about. The prostitutes peeing on the bed is the weirdest — it stands out. I can see both a guilty man and an innocent man fixating on that story.
Comey only sees the guilty man.
Speaking of neurotic obsessions, I couldn’t help but notice that Comey is obsessed with telling us how ethical he is. In the ABC interview alone, Comey used the word “truth” 42 times; “honest” 28 times, “ethical” 10 times — “integrity,” “principle” and “moral” at least five times apiece.
That’s more than I hear in church on Sunday, and the preacher isn’t taking about himself.
Comey’s talking about himself.
“The lesson I’ve learned,” he said, “is that … it helps you see things more clearly and realize things like truth matters, integrity matters. Those ethical values are what are going to last. And when you have to explain what you’ve done someday to your grandchildren, that’s what will matter. Your grandkids won’t understand that people — angry at me, or the vice president of the United States was telling me people were going to die because of me. What they’ll want to know is, ‘What was your North Star?'”
The “Real Housewives” engage in less self-referential preening.
Comey even takes the time to tell us that other people think he’s a pillar of integrity, too! For our edification, he recalled liar-nObama telling him: “‘I appointed you to be FBI director because of your integrity and your ability.’ And then he looked me in the eye” — had he been staring at Comey’s crotch? — “and he said, ‘Nothing has happened, nothing, in the last year that has changed my view of that.'”
I honestly never thought these words would come out of my mouth, but I don’t know whether the former director of the FBI carries 8-by-10 glossies of himself wherever he goes. It’s possible. I don’t know.
Be sure to Click LIKE at the bottom of this article, and share it everywhere!!
By Craig Andresen – Right Side Patriots on American Political Radio
Randa Jarrar is, or was a tenured professor at Fresno State University who, last week, tweeted her disgust for former First Lady Barbara Bush upon the 92 year old death.
Jarrar tweeted, “Barbara Bush was a generous and smart and amazing racist who, along with her husband, raised a war criminal,” and she added…“Fuck outta here with your nice words.”
Jarrar also sent forth this tweet, “PSA: either you are against these pieces of shit and their genocidal ways or you’re part of the problem. That’s actually how simple it is. I’m happy the witch is dead. Can’t wait for the rest of her family to fall to their demise the way 1.5 million Iraqis have. Byyyeeeeeee.”
With a Fresno State University investigation under way, Jarrar is on leave for the rest of this semester, and she has left the country even as her supporters rally on her behalf.
Let’s get something straight here…
.
by Judge Andrew Napolitano
{ townhall.com } ~ A few weeks ago, President Donald Trump was an outwardly happy man because of the utterance of one solitary word from the lips of special counsel Robert Mueller to one of Trump's lawyers. The word that thrilled the president and his legal team was "subject."
It seems that Mueller and one of Trump's lawyers had been negotiating the terms under which the president would submit to an informal interrogation by Mueller and his team of prosecutors and FBI agents. Mueller's request for such an interview was not unusual.
Investigators are usually looking to trap an unwary potential defendant into lying to them -- a crime in that environment, even though the potential defendant is not under oath -- or unwittingly admitting to them an allegation for which they need proof. The potential defendant often believes -- foolishly, as history has shown -- he can actually talk the investigators out of indicting him.
In preparation for this type of interview, the government often tells the lawyer for the person being interviewed whether that person is a witness, a subject or a target. A witness is a person whose knowledge and memory the government wishes to examine. A subject is a person whose behavior is under criminal investigation. A target is a person whom the government plans to indict.
When Trump and his team learned that he was just a subject and not a target, they rejoiced. And then, in a series of bizarre events, all hell broke loose, and his joy turned to gloom. Here is what happened.
In the course of its continuing investigation of Trump, Mueller's team came across evidence of criminal behavior on the part of Michael Cohen, Trump's longtime New York City lawyer. Because the evidence was related to activities that took place in New York City, Mueller sent the evidence to the chief federal prosecutor in Manhattan.
After a team of federal prosecutors there examined whatever Mueller brought them, in conjunction with what they already knew about Cohen, they applied to a federal judge for search warrants of venues where they believed Cohen kept files of his work. The search warrants were executed simultaneously at 5:30 in the morning two Mondays ago.
Cohen's lawyers then filed a motion that asked a federal judge to prevent the federal prosecutors in Manhattan from examining what the FBI seized -- enough to fill a small pickup truck -- arguing that it was Cohen's records of the legal work he had performed for his clients and thus was protected by the attorney-client privilege.
In opposition to Cohen's motion, federal prosecutors argued that Cohen and Trump have engaged in behavior together that may have been criminal or fraudulent and that they used the attorney-client privilege to mask their communications.
The federal prosecutors also argued that Cohen was not truly performing legal work for Trump; rather, they said, he was a fixer of Trump's image and a trickster to Trump's adversaries. Then they revealed that the source of their purported knowledge of the Trump-Cohen relationship was surveillance of Cohen, whose telephone calls, emails and text messages the feds had been capturing for months.
That means that federal prosecutors have overheard the president of the United States in telephone conversations he believed were protected by privilege, in which he was talking to a man under criminal investigation who he has said was his lawyer.
When all this came to a head this past Monday in the federal courtroom of Judge Kimba Wood, she confronted a legally unusual situation. Trump's lawyers demanded that everything seized from Cohen be turned over to Trump because he was and is -- as far as Trump knew -- Cohen's sole client.
Cohen claimed he has three clients, and he demanded that all that was seized be examined by a neutral special master to determine what is privileged and what is not. The prosecutors demanded that they have access to all that was seized, because the seizure had already been approved by another federal judge when he signed the search warrants that triggered the FBI's seizures.
Judge Wood ordered the FBI to copy all that was seized and send copies to lawyers for Trump and for Cohen and to federal prosecutors; and then the lawyers can argue to the court what is privileged and what is fair game for the prosecutors' use. In the course of those arguments, federal prosecutors will see what was seized, whether privileged or not.
The attorney-client privilege protects from scrutiny or revelation the confidential communications of a client to his lawyer that are integral to the lawyer's legal work for the client. The privilege does not apply to casual conversations between client and lawyer or if the lawyer is doing nonlegal work or if the client is committing a crime, a fraud, a tort or a regulatory violation and is consulting the lawyer about that.
Now we have a very perilous situation for the president. Records of whatever work Michael Cohen has been doing for him in the past 10 years will soon be in the custody of federal prosecutors who expect it to be evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the president himself. These are the best federal prosecutors in the country. They are civil service-protected and can only be fired for cause, and they have been listening to the president's phone calls to his confidant and "fixer" and will soon see the fixer's files.
Has Trump been in cahoots with a bad guy as federal prosecutors have alleged? Is this prosecutorial team in Manhattan more dangerous to Donald Trump than Mueller and his crew in Washington? Was evidence about Trump the real goal of those early-morning FBI raids? Is the president no longer just a subject and now a target of a new team of federal prosecutors? Who can safely confide in a lawyer after this?
.
{ americanthinker.com } ~ Paul Manafort is going to jail. He made millions of dollars working as a consultant to a pro-Russian Ukrainian political party... and didn't pay a dime in federal taxes. In fact, he sought to hide his money through an elaborate shell game of dummy corporations. But there has always been a question about why special counsel Robert Mueller was so interested in him. He is not being charged with any crime related to "Russian collusion" with the Trump campaign. For that matter, no one charged in the Muller probe so far is being accused of collusion with Russians to swing the election. Manafort sought to squash his indictment by claiming in a civil suit that Mueller did not have the authority to investigate his money-laundering and tax evasion. His defense team claims that Mueller's powers to investigate went only as far as looking into matters directly related to Russian collusion....
.
Cuomo's Parolee Voting Decree: Good Politics, Bad Policy
The parolee-voting-rights concept is hardly novel. Numerous states have made it lawful for parolees to vote in elections. What’s disturbing in New York’s case (and others) is the process. Cuomo is governing through fiat because the state legislature isn’t comporting to his line of thinking. The Times reports that “the Republican-controlled Senate has opposed many of Mr. Cuomo’s proposed criminal justice reforms.” Fellow Democrat Gov. Terry McAuliffe of Virginia pulled the same thing (unlawfully at first).
But just because a governor is engaged in a policy war with lawmakers doesn’t justify ignoring the legislature. That’s a slippery slope that won’t lead anywhere good. Besides, there’s a strategic angle to Cuomo’s decision — wooing minority voters to overshadow Cynthia Nixon, an actress with hopes of replacing Cuomo as governor. But again, a strategy does not equal good policy.
Heritage Foundation fellows Hans von Spakovsky and Roger Clegg addressed the issue of felon voter rights in a recent column. They appropriately write:
It is precisely because such a high percentage of criminals who are released are so unimproved that they find their way back into prison (nationally, more than half) that it makes sense to wait some period of time, as Florida does, to make sure that the felon really has turned over a new leaf. After that period of time … then the felon could have the right to vote restored. It should be rather like a naturalization ceremony, at a courthouse with friends and family present to celebrate, some official making a nice speech, American flags, and the felon raising his right hand. Now that would be a way to incentivize the reintegration of the felon back into civil society.
The fact that our politicians play games with felon voters should at the very least compel these former prisoners to think twice about the people they support politically. ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/55463-cuomos-parolee-voting-decree-good-politics-bad-policy
.
The Washington, DC, city council is considering a bill introduced by Ward 6 council member Charles Allen lowering the voting age to 16. But unlike other small cities around the country that have passed similar measures, the District of Columbia is treated in some ways as a state — which would allow these DC adolescents to cast a ballot for our next president. That would require congressional approval.
This isn’t the first time the Left has tried to tap into the frustrations of young people in order to advance its agenda. In 1971, fresh off the Vietnam War protests across the nation, Congress passed the 26th Amendment, which gave citizens 18 and older the right to vote.
The argument at the time was that anyone old enough to be sent off to fight in an unjust war ought to be able to vote. In the 1960s, when leftist politicians saw the lengths to which young people were willing to protest against the establishment, they just couldn’t wait to bestow political power upon their draft-dodging brethren and like-minded fellow travelers.
Today’s argument for allowing 16-year-olds to vote is based on the same premise. If the Parkland school shootings taught us one thing, it’s that scum-George Soros-funded teens can be just as rebellious as their 1960s counterparts. But today’s youth protesters are willing to go even further than the Woodstock generation: They’re perfectly willing to trash constitutional rights if it means forcing their policies and ideology on the rest of us.
The Washington Post thinks adults failed the students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and that “maybe it would make sense to give them and their cohort a bigger say in their future.”
Would it make sense? As David Davenport writes at Forbes, “If it is a question of maturity, researchers generally agree that the brain is still developing until the mid-20s, with moral reasoning and abstract thought coming later in the cycle than previously thought.”
More problematic is that studies show a significant number of high school students lack proficiency when it comes to U.S. history, civics and the Constitution. Some can’t name a senator or member of Congress in their home districts, or even the president of the United States for that matter. So why push voting rights for kids who don’t know the first thing about government? The Leftmedia is drooling over the possibilities.
Joshua Douglass at CNN suggests, “The students are fed up with our politicians and are using their voices to demand change. Imagine if they could also vote and turned out in significant numbers. Would meaningful gun reform legislation be more likely to pass? Would our politicians actually be more responsive to the public will?”
Well, the cat’s out of the bag. This isn’t merely about opening the door for today’s passionate and thoughtful youth to participate in our democracy. Nor is it about ensuring that future citizens will stand up for freedom of speech or constitutional rights. Quite the opposite, in fact. This is about using the Parkland tragedy to infiltrate the impressionable minds of young people to repeal the Second Amendment. Period.
And make no mistake: David Hogg and his Twitter-savvy acolytes will be further trained to fight for a broad range of causes and issues in the future. Democrats don’t view these kids as thoughtful citizens but as loyal soldiers in an army ready to tear apart the fabric of our Constitution. Think about it: No one would be pushing voting rights for 16-year-olds if they were marching for the protection of the unborn, defense of the Second Amendment or preservation of traditional marriage.
The media tell us that no generation of youth has ever been so poised to make an impact at the ballot box as Millennials. But that generation can already vote, so what about those behind them? If these budding leftists are given voter ID cards in time for the next presidential election, chances are they’ll have lost interest in this whole citizenship thing.
Heck, with Donald Trump’s roaring economy, these kids might actually have to show up for work and pay taxes by 2020 — at which point they’ll find out that not all bosses allow their employees to walk out of work to join a protest. And by then maybe they’ll understand that shouting down alternative ideas or trampling upon constitutional rights makes one a left-wing agitator, not a responsible citizen.
To all those 14-year-olds hoping to vote in two years, here’s some advice: Read the Constitution, study history and learn about our political system. You’ll see right through those adults currently using you to push their leftist agenda, and you’ll earn the right to one day cast your vote for president. ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/55482-the-kids-should-vote-they-say
.
.
.
Trump Oversees Biggest Cuts to Regs in Quarter-Century
- Federal regulations and intervention cost Americans $1.9 trillion in 2017.
- Federal regulation is a hidden tax that amounts to nearly $15,000 per U.S. household each year, more than Americans spend on any category in their family budget except for housing.
- In 2017, 97 laws were enacted by Congress during the calendar year, while 3,281 rules were issued by agencies. Thus, 34 rules were issued for every law enacted.
- If it were a country, U.S. federal regulation would be the world’s eighth-largest economy, ranking behind India and ahead of Italy.
- Many Americans are concerned about their annual tax burden, but total regulatory costs exceeded the $1.88 trillion the IRS collected in both individual and corporate income taxes in 2017.
- Some 67 federal departments, agencies, and commissions are currently working on 3,209 new regulations in various stages of development.
- The five most active rulemaking entities — the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Transportation, Treasury, and the Environmental Protection Agency — account for 1,359 rules, or 43 percent of all proposed regulations currently under consideration.
- The 2017 Federal Register contained 61,308 pages, the lowest count since 1993 and a 36 percent drop from Obama’s 95,894 pages in 2016, the highest level ever recorded.
https://patriotpost.us/articles/55464-trump-oversees-biggest-cuts-to-regs-in-quarter-century
.
.
by Michelle Malkin
{ cnsnews.com } ~ Move over, Trump Derangement Syndrome. Another unhinged liberal pathology is back:
Chick-fil-A-phobia.
Perhaps, in the interest of public health, the CDC should launch a weekly C-F-A-P surveillance report to map the recurrence of this culturally infectious disease. Early-onset symptoms include fear of pressure-cooked poultry, allergic reaction to waffle potato fries and an irrational hatred of cow costumes. Anti-Christian prejudice and coastal elitism are common comorbidities associated with this debilitating progressive condition.
Ground zero for the latest outbreak? The headquarters of The New Yorker magazine. This week's issue online features the bigoted lament of writer Daniel Piepenbring, who decries the fast-food chain's "creepy infiltration" of the Big Apple and warns against the company's "pervasive Christian traditionalism." Chick-fil-A opened its fourth location in the city last month. The largest franchise in the country, it seats 140, employs 150, and along with the other NYC locations, donates an estimated 17,000 pounds of food to a local pantry for the homeless and hungry. The company is reportedly on track to become the third-largest fast-food chain in the world.
What are the Chick-fil-A-phobes so afraid of?
A private business succeeding in the marketplace based on its merits, without coercion or cronyism.
An enterprise that values hard work, honesty and integrity.
A family-owned American Dream come true that creates jobs, pays taxes, satisfies customers of all backgrounds and gives back to the community.
Horror of horrors, what menaces these sandwich-sellers of faith be!
Chick-fil-A's corporate mission to "glorify God" and "enrich the lives of everyone we touch" leaves The New Yorker scribe terminally heartsick about the "ulterior motive" of its restaurant execs. So do the founding family's commitments to faithful marriages, strong families, Sundays off and the highest standards of character for their employees. The frightened New Yorker critic is especially perturbed by the "Bible verses" enshrined at Chick-fil-A's Atlanta headquarters and by the restaurant's popular bovine mascots -- which he dubs "morbid" and the "ultimate evangelists" -- whose ubiquity on New York billboards and subway corridors is akin to a "carpet bombing."
Notice, by the way, how these hysterical Chick-fil-a-phobes have no qualms about the success of Jewish-owned delis or the spread of Muslim halal food shop operators in New York City who openly pay tribute to their faiths. Imagine a reporter freaking out over Quran verses or Torah citations hung up on a business owner's wall. Welcome to Social Justice 101, where discriminating against Christian-owned business in the name of opposing discrimination is the definition of tolerance.
We've been here before, of course. It was a liberal activist reporter and gay marriage advocate at The New York Times, Kim Severson, who helped launch the first nationwide witch hunt against Chick-fil-A in 2011. The former vice president of the National Gay and Lesbian Journalists Association used her straight-news platform to invoke fear of "evangelical Christianity's muscle flexing" and spread false and libelous attacks on Chick-fil-A founder Truett Cathy and his family as "anti-gay." Her propagandizing in the radical rag of record helped stoke boycotts and regulatory crackdowns by pandering Democrat Mayors Thomas Menino in Boston, Rahm Emanuel in Chicago, and New York City's Bill de Blasio.
Ultimately, those media-manufactured efforts to stifle Chick-fil-A's free enterprise and First Amendment rights failed. The company's products have proved irresistible to customers on all sides of the political spectrum. Gastronomical satisfaction trumps anti-Christian zealotry and zealous anti-Trumpism.
And that's what chaps the thin hides of the far-left journalists at The New York Times and The New Yorker who choke at the sights and smells of good, old-fashioned capitalism.
If leftists only want to eat and drink at a global fast-food company whose progressive CEO shares their Democrat-supporting, gun-grabbing, open-borders, gay marriage-boosting values, they should stick to Howard Schultz's Starbucks cafes.
Oh, wait...
.
.
{ townhall.com } ~ When President liar-Bill Clinton signed the welfare reform act in 1996, which he negotiated with then-Speaker Newt Gingrich, the left claimed people would starve. They didn't. According to the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, between 1996 and 2000, the employment rate for single mothers increased from 63 percent to 76 percent. In addition, the overall poverty rate has declined over the last half-century. Many able-bodied people who once relied on a government check found jobs and started earning a paycheck.
Good news, but the sideshow that has attached itself to so much of the Trump administration has distracted many from things that actually affect people's lives.
President Trump last week signed an executive order, the purpose of which is, according to a White House press release, to reduce poverty in America "by promoting opportunity and economic mobility."
Some of that is already happening with unemployment numbers the lowest they've been in 17 years.
The press release says that in 2017, "the Federal Government spent more than $700 billion on low-income assistance." It notes that since modern welfare began during the administration of Franklin Roosevelt, the system has become a large bureaucracy with little incentive for people to look for work.
Conservatives like to say they measure success not by how many people receive government assistance, but by how many don't. It is more than a sound bite. Helping people become independent of government is real compassion.
The executive order addresses what for many has become an addiction to government: "While bipartisan welfare reform enacted in 1996 was a step toward eliminating the economic stagnation and social harm that can result from long-term Government dependence, the welfare system still traps many recipients, especially children, in poverty and is in need of further reform and modernization in order to increase self-sufficiency, well-being, and economic mobility."
The order also stresses the need for better social networking to become more involved in helping able-bodied people to acquire the skills, education, child care and especially the motivation to work. I would add that churches and religious institutions that benefit from tax breaks should be encouraged to do more to help poor people find employment.
The president cites another key to reducing the welfare rolls: "Address the challenges of populations that may particularly struggle to find and maintain employment including single parents, formerly incarcerated individuals, the homeless, substance abusers, individuals with disabilities and disconnected youth..."
Education choice should be another component of welfare reform. A good education for a child currently living in poverty is a ticket out of the system and into a better life.
I have written before about the nation of Singapore, where unemployment hovers around 2 percent. That's because the country has no welfare programs. If one is capable of working and doesn't work, he gets no check from the government. The truly needy are cared for. Knowing that government is a last resort and not a first resource and that if you don't work, you won't have money to buy food, is a powerful incentive to find a job.
What the administration should do to help sell its welfare reform initiative is locate people who benefitted from the 1996 legislation and who are working and supporting their families and feature them at public events. Optimism almost always overcomes pessimism and the story of people overcoming odds is America's story.
.
by Alan M. Dershowitz
*The very fact that this material is seen or read by a government official constitutes a core violation. It would be the same if the government surreptitiously recorded a confession of a penitent to a priest, or a description of symptoms by a patient to a doctor, or a discussion of their sex life between a husband and wife.
*The recourses for intrusions on the Fourth and Sixth Amendments are multifold: the victim of the intrusion can sue for damages; he or she can exclude it from use by the government in criminal or civil cases; or the victim can demand the material back. But none of these remedies undo the harm to privacy and confidentiality done to the citizen by the government's intrusion into his private and confidential affairs.
The Fifth Amendment is an exclusionary rule. By its terms, it prevents material obtained in violation of the privilege of self-incrimination from being used to incriminate a defendant – that is to convict him of a crime. But the Fourth and Sixth Amendments provide far broader protections: they prohibit government officials from in any way intruding on the privacy of lawyer/client confidential rights of citizens. In other words, if the government improperly seizes private or privileged material, the violation has already occurred, even if the government never uses the material from the person from whom it was seized.
Not surprisingly, therefore, firewalls and taint teams were developed in the context of the Fifth Amendment, not the Fourth or Sixth Amendments. Remember who comprises the firewall and taint teams: other FBI agents, prosecutors and government officials who have no right under the Fourth and Sixth Amendments, even to see private or confidential materials, regardless of whether it is ever used against a defendant. The very fact that this material is seen or read by a government official constitutes a core violation. It would be the same if the government surreptitiously recorded a confession of a penitent to a priest, or a description of symptoms by a patient to a doctor, or a discussion of their sex life between a husband and wife. The government simply has no right to this material, whether it ever uses it against the penitent or the patient or the spouse in a criminal case.
So, let's not dismiss the potential violation of the rights of Michael Cohen and his client, if it were to turn out that included among the materials seized by the government in the raid were private or confidential information or documents.
The recourses for intrusions on the Fourth and Sixth Amendments are multifold: the victim of the intrusion can sue for damages; he or she can exclude it from use by the government in criminal or civil cases; or the victim can demand the material back. But none of these remedies undo the harm to privacy and confidentiality done to the citizen by the government's intrusion into his private and confidential affairs.
An equally important harm is to important relationships that are protected by the law: between lawyer and client, priest and penitent, doctor and patient, husband and wife, etc. If an ordinary citizen, seeing that even the president's confidential communications with his lawyer can be seized and perused, he or she will be far less willing to engage in such communications. As a society, we value such communications; that is why our laws protect them and that is why it should be extremely difficult for the government to intrude upon them, except as a last recourse in extremely important cases.
From what we know, this case does not meet those stringent standards. Much of the material sought by the warrant could probably be obtained through other sources, such as bank, tax and other records that are subject to subpoena. Moreover, the alleged crimes at issue – highly technical violations of banking and election laws – would not seem to warrant the extreme measure of a highly publicized search and seizure of records that may well include some that are subject to the lawyer/client privilege.
Someday soon, the government is going to have to justify its decision to conduct this raid. I challenge any reader who is not concerned about this raid to honestly answer the following question: If the raid had been conducted on liar-Hillary Clinton's lawyer's office and home, would you be as unconcerned? The truth now!
.
{ washingtonexaminer.com } ~ When Republicans fail to advance a limited government agenda when they have power, it does not merely entrench the status quo... it paves the road for liberals to fulfill their expansionist dreams when they’re in charge. There is no better example of this than on healthcare policy. For decades, Republican inaction and acquiesce has allowed liberals to make uneven yet substantial progress toward their ultimate goal of imposing government-run healthcare on the United States. This time, Republican dithering may just enable Democrats to reach that promised land. In 1994, Republicans cheered after defeating President liar-Clinton’s push for national healthcare.They moved on to other issues, and avoided comprehensive free market healthcare reform when they had unified control of government during the second Bush administration. Democrats regrouped, learned from their mistakes, and honed their policies and messaging as they waited for their next opportunity. When given the chance, they passed liar-nObamacare....
{ townhall.com } ~ Did you hear the one about the 'racist' Trump judicial nominee? Wendy Vitter, whom the president has selected to a federal District Court bench in Eastern Louisiana, declined at her confirmation hearing this week to weigh in on the correctness of the Supreme Court's landmark 1954 Brown v. Board of Education striking down segregation. The Left-wing outrage industry -- already eager to see her defeated -- seized on the exchange to paint Vitter as a crypto-segregationist:
“Do you believe that Brown v. Board of Education was correctly decided,” Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat, asked. “I don’t mean to be coy,” Vitter responded. “But I think I get into a difficult area when I start commenting on Supreme Court decisions which are correctly decided and which I may disagree with. Again, my personal, political or religious views I would set aside. That is Supreme Court precedent. It is binding. If I were honored to be confirmed I would be bound by it, and of course I would uphold it.” After a pause, Blumenthal repeated the question. Vitter said: “Again, I would respectfully not comment on what could be my boss’ ruling, the Supreme Court. I would be bound by it. And if I start commenting on ‘I agree with this case’ or ‘don’t agree with this case’ I think we get into a slippery slope.”
This clip made the rounds, with liberal commentators melting down over how astonishing and amoral her response was. Take a look at some of these headlines. But the very same former Assistant US Attorney who many on the Left and others were favorably quoting earlier in the week regarding the FBI raids against President Trump's personal attorney took to Twitter to expose what he described as the "deceit" involved in launching this smear:
What Vitter was doing in this instance was resorting to -- or retreating to -- a version of the 'Ginsburg Standard,' established by ultraliberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg during her 1993 confirmation hearings. At the time, she said she would decline to comment specifically on any cases or issues that may come before her as a justice. Here's a contemporaneous New York Times report:
In her opening statement to the committee, which began its hearings today on the nomination, Judge Ginsburg also sought to set a clear boundary on what kind of questions she was willing to answer. She said she would not discuss specific cases or issues that might come before her. "It would be wrong for me to say or preview in this legislative chamber how I would cast my vote on questions the Supreme Court may be called upon to decide," she said. "A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process." Although such unwillingness to engage in specifics has frustrated and annoyed some senators in the past, it was clear today that it will make no difference for Judge Ginsburg, who seems bound to win Senate approval easily.
Indeed, she sailed through by a 96-3 vote. As Ken White (aka "Pope Hat") says, "a significant number of nominees" have adopted a similar approach to answering questions about specific cases. Vitter undoubtedly believes Brown v. Board was rightly and justly decided, as do all Americans beyond the racist fringe. But like others before her, she chose not to go down the path of opining on the wisdom or rectitude of various Supreme Court rulings on any subject. If there were any shred of evidence at all that she might not believe in racial integration, that would certainly be cause for serious alarm. But her response to this question does not constitute such evidence. Also, a conservative attorney points out that Vitter specifically says she's bound by the Brown v. Board precedent:
My strong guess is that Vitter knows that this specific decision is a no-brainer, but discerned that if she started offering her views on "easy" cases, the line of questioning would proceed to much more controversial matters like Roe, Heller, Obergefell, etc. You may think it was a tactical error to stay silent on this narrow question in order to avoid the category entirely others have weighed in on settled, slam-dunk cases like Brown without wading into others. You may think that judges should be more transparent on such matters in general. But that's not the point of this nasty attack. The point of this nasty attack is to imply that the nominee, and the man who nominated her, are retrograde racists. I cannot speak to the qualifications of Ms. Vitter for the position, and I happen to agree that her past anti-abortion activism and initially incomplete disclosures are reasonable issues for opponents to raise; conservatives would do the same if the ideological shoe were on the other foot.
But this particular smear, which has gained a great deal of attention just perform a web search of her name, seems grossly unfair and misleading. I'll leave you with this: The Time Magazine piece I quoted above asserted that Vitter once advanced the "false statement" that Planned Parenthood kills 150,000 American females per year. But that claim is absolutely true if one believes that (a) each abortion ends a life, and (b) roughly half of all abortions in America target unborn females Planned Parenthood performs approximately 300,000 abortions per year. Each element of that belief is backed up by science. Pro-choice or pro-abortion people may not believe that those lives ought to be legally recognized or protected, but that opinion does not change the scientific facts. It's almost as if journalists are overwhelmingly biased on the issue of abortion.
.
Patriots' Day and the Flags of Our Forefathers
We hold this historic date in high esteem, along with those days commemorating the anniversaries of our Declaration of Independence, Constitution and its Bill of Rights. Indeed, our publication takes its name in honor of this first generation of American Patriots — and all those since. Unfortunately, Patriots’ Day receives little attention nationally, and even less in educational institutions, where our nation’s stirring and singular history is rarely taught to young people.
The most basic principles of American Liberty and Rule of Law, and the generational sacrifices of millions of Americans who have honored their oaths “to support and defend” Liberty’s enshrinement in our Constitution, are often not understood or appreciated by many young people — and too many adults.
So undervalued are our forbear’s historic sacrifices for Liberty that among the ranks of entrenched ideological leftists are those who view our nation’s flag with contempt. This is often combined with a deep insecurity-driven fear of the Liberty and self-determination it represents and, consequently, a loathing of those willing to defend it.
In our conservative East Tennessee community, the American flag is commonly displayed on houses and, to commemorate Memorial, Independence and Veterans Days each year, is attached to every power pole on the main thoroughfares.
Among the fixed residential flag poles in our community is a 20-foot standard in front of our house.
I installed that pole in June of 1994, on the 50th anniversary of D-Day — the beginning of the end of World War II. I erected it as a humble but fitting tribute to a neighbor, my father’s lifelong best friend and fellow WWII veteran. So close were these two men that we always referred to my father’s friend as “uncle.”
In 1944, my “uncle” was a young Army second lieutenant leading a machine gun platoon on the front lines of notable battles against Hitler’s Wehrmacht in France and Germany until the end of the war. On several occasions in urban combat, he killed the enemy in hand-to-hand combat. Though a strong and tough individual of formidable stature well into his 80s, he recounted those battles with great pain and occasional tears for the loss of life — on both sides.
He has since departed this life, but it’s for him — and for all who have defended Liberty at risk of their own life — that our flag flies high and proud.
Last month, our flag greeted a gathering of Vietnam combat veterans at our home, some of whom recently returned to that country to make their peace. It was an extraordinary evening, but punctuated by a question asked by one of those decorated veterans which sparked some antipathy. That question: “Do some people object to your flag?”
It was the fifth time I’d been asked a similar question in recent months, and it stemmed from a plastic yard sign across the street from our flag that asserts, “Hate Has No Home Here” — in multiple languages. Some similar signs popped up in front of a few other residences occupied by “liberals,” ostensibly in response to the clash of socialist and fascist haters in Charlottesville, Virginia, last summer.
All but a handful of those signs disappeared after a month or so.
Of course, there’s nothing inherently wrong with the message on that yard sign, other than such signs are the epitome of trendy “virtue signaling” and may be intended to project that the views of those occupants have higher moral authority and standing than those of their neighbors. Notably, posting yard signs and applying bumper stickers is most often the full extent of the “sacrifice” these folks undertake to change the world.
According to the Chicago-based activists who produce and market the signs, they’re needed because, “Hate, unchecked, can make neighbors feel fearful and unwelcome in their own communities. … It’s easy to hate people we don’t know.” But what about the neighbors we do know?
In a conversation with my friend about his sign, he explained that it is aimed at “jingoistic flag-wavers” and all those deplorable people who did not support liar-Hillary Clinton.
The implications of that explanation notwithstanding, I genuinely like all our neighbors, regardless of their political affinities. I grew up in a home steeped in the principles set forth in the Greatest Commandments (Matthew 22:35-40) and was taught early that there’s good to be found in just about everyone from any walk of life. As a result, I treasure relationships with many friends and colleagues who hold a wide spectrum of beliefs.
To maintain relationships with a few of them, as a rule I avoid engaging in any Chardonnay-soaked political debate with folks whose views are antithetical to those I share with generations of Patriots who have devoted their lives to Liberty for all.
I subscribe to, and recommend Thomas Jefferson maxim: “I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend.”
Of course, Jefferson also advised, “Love your neighbor as yourself and your country more than yourself.”
When pondering the deeply held political beliefs of those who errantly embrace statism, without understanding that its terminus is, irrevocably, tyranny, I recall with a smile how kindly Ronald Reagan put it: “The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”
For the record, I don’t display yard signs or bumper stickers which project political or social virtues, opting instead for action over imagery. (Disclaimer: In recent years a few of my likeminded prankster friends have littered our yard with liar-nObama and liar-Clinton campaign signs — under cover of darkness. All such fraternal insults are answered in kind!)
But make no mistake: I’ll defend my neighbor’s right to post his yard sign.
For me, and for American Patriots nationwide, that defense is, in small part, what our flag represents — and has embodied since the original 13-star Patriot flag was raised after those first shots fired at Lexington Green.
Thus, I’ll always fly our nation’s flag with due honor and pride, and lower it on occasion, as I did at sunrise today in memory of and respect for Barbara Bush. Our flag reflects our gratitude for generations of Patriots who sacrificed their personal safety in defense of Liberty, and the innumerable and extraordinary personal sacrifices under that banner. ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/alexander/55436-patriots-day-and-the-flags-of-our-forefathers