The Front Page Cover
~ Featuring ~
What if Government Steals
Liberty and Fails to Deliver Safety?
by Judge Andrew Napolitano
.
The Racist Times
by Nate Jackson: “Can My Children Be Friends With White People?” That was the title of a weekend op-ed at The New York Times. The author, Ekow N. Yankah, is a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University. And he answers the provocative title question in exactly the way you’d expect: With a “no.” He writes, “I will teach my boys to have profound doubts that friendship with white people is possible. … For many weary minorities, the ridiculous thing was thinking friendship was possible in the first place.”
by Nate Jackson: “Can My Children Be Friends With White People?” That was the title of a weekend op-ed at The New York Times. The author, Ekow N. Yankah, is a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University. And he answers the provocative title question in exactly the way you’d expect: With a “no.” He writes, “I will teach my boys to have profound doubts that friendship with white people is possible. … For many weary minorities, the ridiculous thing was thinking friendship was possible in the first place.” Moreover, Yankah continued by — what else — slamming Donald Trump: “Of course, the rise of this president has broken bonds on all sides. But for people of color the stakes are different. Imagining we can now be friends across this political line is asking us to ignore our safety and that of our children. … His election and the year that has followed have fixed the awful thought in my mind too familiar to black Americans: ‘You can’t trust these people.’”
As Gary Bauer properly noted, “The Times would never and should never publish a column by a white professor asking if his children could be friends with black people.”
That’s because what Yankah is writing is pure racism. Not only is he ignorant of Dr. Martin Luther King’s dream of a world that judges by character and not color, he turns that dream into a nightmare — deliberately. He argues, “The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.‘s famous dream of black and white children holding hands was a dream precisely because he realized that in Alabama, conditions of dominance made real friendship between white and black people impossible.”
What now makes those friendships impossible is the continued grievance-mongering of race-baiters like Yankah and leftist rags like The New York Times.
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52423
.
RINO-McConnell, WH, Sessions Considering
Return To Senate, Replacing Roy Moore
by rickwells.us
{rickwells.us} ~ Is Attorney General Jeff Sessions considering a return to the Senate, running as a write-in candidate to regain his old seat?... The idea is being kicked around, according to RINO-Mitch McConnell, who said Sessions “fits the mold” of someone who could win a write-in campaign. RINO-McConnell has been in contact with the White House on the race but claims he is not optimistic about a Republican winning without having their name on the ballot. Speaking at a Wall Street Journal CEO Council event, RINO-McConnell said, “That’s very seldom successful.” But the reality is that there is a building momentum against Judge Moore, partly festered by RINO-McConnell, who doesn’t want Moore to represent the state. He labeled Moore’s campaign as collapsing and agreed that a last-minute effort by Sessions to win back his former seat is a possibility. Good-by Session. https://rickwells.us/mcconnell-wh-sessions-senate/.
A New Bombshell Will Be The End Of Robert Mueller
.
The Decline of Objectivity
and Honesty in The Anti-Trump Media
by Daniel Greenfield
{frontpagemag.com} ~ What makes the news media legitimate? Trust. What's trust based on? Honesty. What's honesty based on? Objectivity... Having a big building and brand name does not make you legitimate. At least not to most people. Trust is based on honesty. The more the media made it clear that its objective is destroying Trump, the more obvious its bias became. As the media denied the bias, it became guilty of dishonesty. And its attacks do frequently diverge into dubious and dishonest claims. Fake news. The media had functioned as a powerful institution because of its pretense of objectivity. When it tossed aside objectivity, all it had left was power... http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/268407/decline-objectivity-and-honesty-anti-trump-media-daniel-greenfield.
VIDEOSJuanita Broaddrick On Why It’s Time For liar-Bill’s Comeuppance
.
Senate Version Of Tax Bill Removes liar-nObamacare Individual Mandate.
Rep. Speier: Sex Assault Victims Assaulted on House Floor.
California Sheriffs Take Stand AGAINST State Sanctuary Designation.
Sessions Confronts Democrat Ted Lieu (D-Ca) Who Accused Him of Lying.
AG Jeff Sessions Destroys Rep.Gutierrez (D-IL) on the liar-Clinton Investigation.
FINALLY! Jeff Sessions Drops ĎĚVĂŠŤĂŤÍŃĞ BÓMBŠHĚLL on liar-HillaryClinton "this could be it".
loose lips-Joe Biden Is One Creepy Guy.
.
What if Government Steals
Liberty and Fails to Deliver Safety?
{townhall.com} ~ What if the government doesn't really deliver for us? What if its failures to protect our lives, liberties and property are glaring? What if nothing changes after these failures?
What if the National Security Agency -- the federal government's domestic spying apparatus -- has convinced Congress that it needs to cut constitutional corners in order to spy on as many people in America as possible? What if Congress has bought that argument and passed a statute that put a secret court between the NSA and its appetite for all electronically transmitted data in America? What if that secret court -- called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court -- is supposed to protect personal liberty but instead has become a wall behind which the NSA hides?
What if the Constitution only permits warrants for searches and seizures that are based on probable cause of crime? What if the Constitution requires that all warrants for searches and seizures specifically describe the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized? What if the courts have ruled that electronic surveillance constitutes a search and seizure within the meaning of the Constitution?
What if the FISC issues warrants based on a lesser standard than probable cause of crime? What if its standard is probable cause of speaking with or knowing someone who has spoken with a foreign person? What if this is such an absurd and loose standard that it violates the Constitution and ends up protecting no one except the spies who pretend to employ it?
What if the FISC is a facade? What if the NSA spies on all people all the time while hiding behind FISC-issued warrants? What if the stated purpose of spying on everyone all the time is to keep us safe from terrorist acts by trading liberty for security? What if that trade has never worked?
What if the NSA has convinced President Donald Trump and his immediate two predecessors that it needs to spy on everyone in America to keep us safe, no matter what the Constitution says? What if those three presidents have bought that argument?
What if NSA spying is really done without any warrants? What if this spying captures in real time every keystroke on every computer and hand-held device -- as well as the content of every email, text message, telephone call and fiber-optic cable transmission -- in the United States 24/7?
What if NSA computers have direct and unimpeded access to all mainframe computers of all telecoms and computer service providers in the U.S.? What if the acquisition of all this data is known in the intelligence community as bulk surveillance?
What if the Constitution is the supreme law of the land? What if the Constitution, with its requirement of warrants based on probable cause and specifically identifying targets, expressly prohibits bulk surveillance? What if bulk surveillance is not only unconstitutional but also useless because it produces information overload -- too much data to sift through in a timely manner?
What if President Trump and his immediate two predecessors have unleashed the NSA to acquire all communications data about everyone in America even though it's obvious that the NSA cannot possibly sift through it all in a timely enough manner to keep us safe?
What if the Islamic State-inspired extremist who drove a rental truck on a New York City bicycle and pedestrian path and killed eight people last week did a dry run of his killing plans the week before? What if one of his own cellphones recorded portions of the dry run? What if the NSA had that recording but did not notice it until after the attack?
What if the same killer who drove the rental truck stored 90 video clips of other Islamic State-inspired killings on a cellphone? What if the NSA had those videos but did not notice them until after the attack?
What if the same killer who drove that rental truck also stored nearly 4,000 photos of Islamic State atrocities on a cellphone and the NSA, which has had the repellant photos since the killer first stored them, did not notice them until after the attack?
What if liberty is our birthright and cannot be taken away by government without a jury trial? What if the NSA's allies in government wrongly and foolishly think that the surrender of privacy to America's 60,000 domestic spies somehow keeps us safe?
What if the genius of the Constitution -- if followed -- is not only its protection of privacy but also its requirement that the government focuses its searches and seizures on people who it has reason to suspect are engaged in criminal activity and about whom judges have ratified the evidence to support those suspicions? What if the Constitution requires the government to leave the rest of us alone?
What if the government stinks at keeping us safe but is very good at invading our privacy?
What if this bulk surveillance is about power and control and not about safety? What if the NSA has selectively leaked what it knows about some folks for political purposes? What if President Trump himself and his former national security adviser have been victims of those leaks?
What if the use of intelligence data for political purposes and not for safety is a profound danger to democracy? What if government can't keep us safe? What if we falsely think that it does keep us safe? What if that delusion makes us less safe? What if government's bulk acquisition of private data makes us less free? What if government works not for us but for itself? What do we do about it?
Comments