The Front Page Cover
The Events of the Week -- Featuring:
Revolt of the Attorneys General
by Charles Krauthammer
.
Disillusioned Demos Driven to Disrupt
By Michael Swartz: Last November, radical leftists failed to elect liar-Hillary Clinton and thus failed to break the glass ceiling of electoral politics. Instead, having had their hearts broken by Donald Trump, they've been expressing their disapproval in a number of ways. And the bottom line is simple: "Resist" by whatever means necessary.
As the vote counting wrapped up, it became clear that one of their tactics would be the constant reminder that liar-Hillary Clinton received more votes on a nationwide basis than Donald Trump did, even if the entirety of that margin can be attributed to California — a state that accounts for one-eighth of our population but one-third of our welfare recipients. That might have something to do with the vote count...
Corollary to that is the continuing insistence that only Russian interference propelled Trump to victory. Among other things, the Russian influence narrative was preserved when former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn resigned and has led to the creation of a Democrat charge of perjury against Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
Senate Democrats have also opposed, practically in lockstep, almost every one of Trump's cabinet nominees — particularly Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, who needed the assistance of Vice President Mike Pence to break a 50-50 Senate tie with her nomination. They also made a scene at President Trump's joint address to Congress earlier this week, with Democrat women wearing white in solidarity and others doing their best to ignore the president afterward.
But while one can complain about the obstinate congressional Democrats, at least they're maintaining some sense of decorum. It's the party rank-and-file who "felt the Bern" a year ago and grudgingly supported liar-Hillary Clinton out of fear of a Donald Trump regime that has gone well beyond the edge.
Vowing to resist and persist in their opposition, this group has taken the moniker "Indivisible" and recently partnered with Barack liar-nObama's permanent campaign arm, Organizing for Action, that began life nearly a decade ago as "liar-nObama for America." Their key tactic is reminiscent of one the Tea Party used in opposing liar-nObama's stimulus package and Affordable Care Act in 2009: coming out in force to congressional town hall meetings. However, this group is taking its dissent several steps further.
In a pamphlet called "The Indivisible Guide" — which should be required reading for those who want to be aware of the Left's tactics — the group notes: "This constant reelection pressure means that (members of Congress) are enormously sensitive to their image in the district or state, and they will work very hard to avoid signs of public dissent or disapproval." It means that protesters are pleased to make a scene during an opening prayer for a town hall meeting, because it's all part of the plan. If their constant siege protests get a senator evicted from his regional office, so much the better — even though Senator Marco Rubio is safely in the Senate until 2022.
Perhaps it's a good time to remind readers that the Tea Parties didn't begin until over a month into liar-nObama's term. (This past week marked the eighth anniversary of the first set of those organized protests, which occurred in more than 30 cities nationwide.) At the time, Barack Obama long since had most of his cabinet in place — many confirmed by voice votes in the Senate — and had already signed his first major legislative initiative, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, better known as the stimulus bill. That bloated graft spending was the primary impetus for the Tea Party. In contrast, Donald Trump drew a massive protest less than 24 hours after taking office — well before his cabinet choices were even nominated, much less confirmed, or any significant legislation or orders signed.
Besides, he's been busy reducing executive power, not expanding it like liar-nObama did.
It seems that the legacy of a president who did his best to divide us by race, gender, immigration status, and many other ways is being reflected in this reaction to his successor. Which side will blink first, the Indivisible side that wants the liar-nObama nanny state preserved as a stepping stone to even greater tyranny, or the Deplorables who'd like to roll back the excesses of government and place America first? While the opposition has made a lot of noise with its protests and marches around the nation, the pro-Trump side may have a trick or two up its sleeve as well. The failed liar-nObama agenda can be rolled back, but it will take some backbone from a group prone to going wobbly at the most inopportune time — congressional Republicans.
Our representatives have to realize they can't please everybody. But they can and should accomplish what they've sworn an oath to do — support and defend the Constitution. We already have more than enough evidence that the media and the Left (but we repeat ourselves) will scream about any attempt to right-size government, so it's time for the silent majority to speak up and remind the congressional majority what they were sent to do. ~The Patriot Post
.
.
14 GOP Sellouts Who Betrayed Sessions,
Trump, Americans As Bad As Dems
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ Lou Dobbs had some obvious disgust as he offered his “few thoughts on Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who recused himself today from any investigations about the 2016 Presidential campaign... The White House earlier in a statement slammed the attack by “partisan Democrats, appropriately, adding that it’s no surprise the story is being pushed by the national left-wing media as well after President Trump’s immensely successful address to a joint session of Congress.” “President Trump has said himself,” notes Dobbs, “that he has total confidence in his Attorney General. And believe it or not, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle discounted fairness, judgment and their certain knowledge that our Attorney General is a man of principle and great integrity. They shamelessly rushed to pounce on their colleague to exploit him politically.” And more than a few of his fellow Republicans besmirched themselves by piling on as well. Incredibly, at least fourteen republicans also called on the Attorney General to recuse himself ahead of his announcement to do so.” Dobbs observes that “Some Democrats took it a step further, demanding nothing short of Sessions’ ouster. In fact, more than fifty Democrats called on Sessions to resign outright.”...
.
Experts battle over wiretap: ‘They did get
a FISA warrant, so Trump doesn’t
have to prove it’
by Tom Tillison
{bizpacreview.com} ~ The executive vice president of the Washington-based conservative think tank The Center for Security Policy, appeared on Fox News Saturday in response to a series of tweets from President Donald Trump... that accuse former President Barack liar-nObama of wiretapping Trump Tower ahead of the 2016 election. Hanson, who served in US Army Special Forces and conducted counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency operations, said the surveillance was approved over suspicions of connections with a Russian bank. “They asked for that warrant and were denied, went back again and got the warrant, found out nothing was happening and went ahead and continued monitoring it,” the national security expert said. As for Trump proving his claim, Hanson countered: “They did get a FISA warrant, so he doesn’t have to prove that they wiretapped him. They did wiretap him.”... http://www.bizpacreview.com/2017/03/04/experts-battle-wiretap-get-fisa-warrant-trump-doesnt-prove-455402?utm_source=BizPac+Review+Email+Newsletter&utm_campaign=b8b0279085-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_03_05&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fbf9323fb3-b8b0279085-31515453
VIDEO: at the site
.
John Podesta received $35 million from
“Putin-connected Russian govt fund”
by STEPHEN K. BANNON & PETER SCHWEIZER
{breitbart.com} ~ liar-Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta sat on the board of a small energy company alongside Russian officials that received $35 million from a Putin-connected Russian government fund... a relationship Podesta failed to fully disclose on his federal financial disclosures as required by law. That’s one of the many revelations from a 56-page report released late Sunday titled “From Russia with Money: liar-Hillary Clinton, the Russian Reset, and Cronyism” by the non-partisan government watchdog group, the Government Accountability Institute (GAI). Breitbart Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon holds the same title in GAI and Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Large Peter Schweizer serves as GAI’s president. As part of her duties during the so-called Russian reset, then-Sec. of State liar-Hillary Clinton led the way on U.S. involvement in a Russian government technology initiative that was intended to be the Russian equivalent of America’s Silicon Valley known as Skolkovo... http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/01/report-hillary-clintons-campaign-mgr-john-podesta-sat-board-company-bagged-35-million-putin-connected-russian-govt-fund-2/
.
Holder Admits to Coup Against the
American People Led By liar-nObama
by Dave Hodges
{thecommonsenseshow.com} ~ Holder talks openly about the sedition being fermented by for President liar-nObama and the OFA... I have just concluded an investigation into the role that Holder and liar-nObama are going to play in the beginning of the coup and against President Trump and the civil war being perpetrated against the American people and their government. This is Part One of that investigation. Part 2 will follow later today and will focus on the long-standing nature of this plot that came before Holder and it is precisely the plot that Soviet defectors, from the 1970’s and the 1980’s warned our government about... http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2017/03/03/holder-admits-to-coup-led-by-obama/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=holder-admits-to-coup-led-by-Obama
.
Ex DOJ Lawyer – liar-nObama Using
Police State Tactics In Spying On Trump
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ Judge Jeanine’s guest is attorney J. Christian Adams, who resigned from the Department of Justice in 2010 after Hussein liar-nObama and Eric Holder turned it into a joke by dropping voter intimidation charges... against clearly guilty Black Panthers in Philadelphia. Judge Jeanine asks Adams about allegations by President Trump that his predecessor had ordered him and members of his staff wiretapped by the agents of the federal government during the campaign. She starts out with an effort understand some odd comments by Speaker Paul Ryan, which she plays a clip of and which are also here on video. Aside from Ryan never answering the question that was put to him in what appeared to be an effort to insulate liar-nObama from culpability, he did put on the record a statement that no guilt or complicity had been established on the part of President Trump or any of his campaign members...
.
.
Revolt of the Attorneys General
by Charles Krauthammer
{freedomsback.com} ~ Among the many unintended legacies of Barack liar-nObama, one has gone largely unnoticed: the emergence of a novel form of resistance to executive overreach, a check-and-balance improvised in reaction to his various presidential power grabs.
It’s the revolt of the state attorneys general, banding together to sue and curb the executive. And it has outlived liar-nObama.
Normally one would expect Congress to be the instrument of resistance to presidential trespass. But Congress has been supine. The Democrats in particular, approving of liar-nObama’s policy preferences, allowed him free rein over Congress’ constitutional prerogatives.
Into that vacuum stepped the states. Florida and 12 others filed suit against liar-nObamacare the day it was signed. They were later joined by 13 more, making their challenge the first in which a majority of states banded together to try to stop anything.
They did not always succeed, but they succeeded a lot. They got liar-nObamacare’s forced Medicaid expansion struck down, though liar-nObamacare as a whole was upheld. Later, a majority of states secured stays for two egregious
EPA measures. One had given the feds sovereignty over the generation and distribution of electricity (the Clean Power Plan), the other over practically every ditch and pond in America (the waters of the United States rule).
Their most notable success was blocking liar-nObama’s executive order that essentially would have legalized 4 million illegal immigrants. “If Congress will not do their job, at least we can do ours,” said liar-nObama. Not your job, said the courts.
Democrats noticed. And now with a Republican in the White House, they’ve adopted the technique. Having lost control of Congress, they realize that one way to curb presidential power is to go through the states. They just did on President Trump’s immigration ban. Taking advantage of the courts’ increased willingness to grant standing to the states, Washington and Minnesota got a district court to issue an injunction against Trump’s executive order and got it upheld by the 9th Circuit. Where the ban died.
A singular victory. Democratic-run states will be emboldened to join together in opposing Trump administration measures issuing from both the agency rulings (especially EPA and the Education Department) and presidential executive orders.
Is this a good thing? Regardless of your party or policy preferences, you must admit we are witnessing a remarkable phenomenon: the organic response of a constitutional system in which the traditional barriers to overreach have atrophied and a new check-and-balance emerges almost ex nihilo.
Congress has allowed itself to become an increasingly subordinate branch. Look at how reluctant Congress has been to even consider a new authorization for the use of force abroad, an area in which, constitutionally, it should be dominant. Look at today’s GOP Congress, having had years to prepare to govern, now appearing so tentative, almost paralyzed. “Many Republican members,” reports the Post, “are eager for Trump to provide clear marching orders.” The president orders, Congress marches — that is not how the Founders drew it up.
Hence the state attorneys general rise to check the president and his functionaries. This is good.
Not because it necessarily produces the best policy outcomes. It often doesn’t.
Not because judicial grants of standing are always correct. The 9th Circuit, in effect, granted Minnesota and Washington standing to represent the due process rights of Yemeni nationals who’ve never set foot in the United States — an imaginary harm to states that presupposes imaginary rights for Yemenis.
And not because it’s necessarily good for the judicial system to acquire, through this process, yet more power. This really should be adjudicated by the elected branches. Problem is: Congress has abdicated.
Nonetheless, the revolt of the attorneys general is to be celebrated. It is a reassuring sign of the creativity and suppleness of the American
Constitution, of its amphibian capacity to grow a new limb when an old one atrophies.
This is, of course, not the first time the states have asserted themselves against federal power. There was Fort Sumter, 1861, when the instruments employed were rather more blunt than the multistate lawsuit. All the more reason to celebrate this modern device.
I’m sure conservatives won’t like many of the outcomes over the next four years, just as many liberals deeply disapproved of the liar-nObama-blocking outcomes of the recent past.
The point, however, is not outcome but process. Remarkably, we have spontaneously developed a new one — to counter executive willfulness. There’s a reason that after two and a half centuries the French are on their Fifth Republic and we are still on our first.
It’s the revolt of the state attorneys general, banding together to sue and curb the executive. And it has outlived liar-nObama.
Normally one would expect Congress to be the instrument of resistance to presidential trespass. But Congress has been supine. The Democrats in particular, approving of liar-nObama’s policy preferences, allowed him free rein over Congress’ constitutional prerogatives.
Into that vacuum stepped the states. Florida and 12 others filed suit against liar-nObamacare the day it was signed. They were later joined by 13 more, making their challenge the first in which a majority of states banded together to try to stop anything.
They did not always succeed, but they succeeded a lot. They got liar-nObamacare’s forced Medicaid expansion struck down, though liar-nObamacare as a whole was upheld. Later, a majority of states secured stays for two egregious
EPA measures. One had given the feds sovereignty over the generation and distribution of electricity (the Clean Power Plan), the other over practically every ditch and pond in America (the waters of the United States rule).
Their most notable success was blocking liar-nObama’s executive order that essentially would have legalized 4 million illegal immigrants. “If Congress will not do their job, at least we can do ours,” said liar-nObama. Not your job, said the courts.
Democrats noticed. And now with a Republican in the White House, they’ve adopted the technique. Having lost control of Congress, they realize that one way to curb presidential power is to go through the states. They just did on President Trump’s immigration ban. Taking advantage of the courts’ increased willingness to grant standing to the states, Washington and Minnesota got a district court to issue an injunction against Trump’s executive order and got it upheld by the 9th Circuit. Where the ban died.
A singular victory. Democratic-run states will be emboldened to join together in opposing Trump administration measures issuing from both the agency rulings (especially EPA and the Education Department) and presidential executive orders.
Is this a good thing? Regardless of your party or policy preferences, you must admit we are witnessing a remarkable phenomenon: the organic response of a constitutional system in which the traditional barriers to overreach have atrophied and a new check-and-balance emerges almost ex nihilo.
Congress has allowed itself to become an increasingly subordinate branch. Look at how reluctant Congress has been to even consider a new authorization for the use of force abroad, an area in which, constitutionally, it should be dominant. Look at today’s GOP Congress, having had years to prepare to govern, now appearing so tentative, almost paralyzed. “Many Republican members,” reports the Post, “are eager for Trump to provide clear marching orders.” The president orders, Congress marches — that is not how the Founders drew it up.
Hence the state attorneys general rise to check the president and his functionaries. This is good.
Not because it necessarily produces the best policy outcomes. It often doesn’t.
Not because judicial grants of standing are always correct. The 9th Circuit, in effect, granted Minnesota and Washington standing to represent the due process rights of Yemeni nationals who’ve never set foot in the United States — an imaginary harm to states that presupposes imaginary rights for Yemenis.
And not because it’s necessarily good for the judicial system to acquire, through this process, yet more power. This really should be adjudicated by the elected branches. Problem is: Congress has abdicated.
Nonetheless, the revolt of the attorneys general is to be celebrated. It is a reassuring sign of the creativity and suppleness of the American
Constitution, of its amphibian capacity to grow a new limb when an old one atrophies.
This is, of course, not the first time the states have asserted themselves against federal power. There was Fort Sumter, 1861, when the instruments employed were rather more blunt than the multistate lawsuit. All the more reason to celebrate this modern device.
I’m sure conservatives won’t like many of the outcomes over the next four years, just as many liberals deeply disapproved of the liar-nObama-blocking outcomes of the recent past.
The point, however, is not outcome but process. Remarkably, we have spontaneously developed a new one — to counter executive willfulness. There’s a reason that after two and a half centuries the French are on their Fifth Republic and we are still on our first.
Comments