Tagged: clinton legacy Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Jack 3:40 am on December 13, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: clinton legacy, , , , , , , , , , ,   

    Investigative Disaster 

    Special prosecutors, investigators, and counsels are usually a bad idea. They are admissions that constitutionally mandated institutions don’t work — and can be rescued only by supposed superhuman moralists, who are without the innate biases inherent in human nature.

    The record from Lawrence Walsh to Ken Starr to Patrick Fitzgerald suggests otherwise. Originally narrow mandates inevitably expand — on the cynical theory that everyone has something embarrassing to hide. Promised “short” timelines and limited budgets are quickly forgotten. Prosecutors search for ever new crimes to justify the expense and public expectations of the special-counsel appointment.

    Soon the investigators need to be investigated for their own conflicts of interest, as if we need special-special or really, really special prosecutors. Special investigations often quickly turn Soviet, in the sense of “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.”

    Special Counsel Robert Mueller has led what seems to be an exemplary life of public service. No doubt he believes that as a disinterested investigator he can get to the bottom of the once contentious charge of “Russian collusion” in the 2016 election. But can he?

    A Mandate Gone Wild

    Something has gone terribly wrong with the Mueller investigation.

    The investigation is venturing well beyond the original mandate of rooting out evidence of Russian collusion. Indeed, the word “collusion” is now rarely invoked at all. It has given way to its successor, “obstruction.” The latter likely will soon beget yet another catchphrase to justify the next iteration of the investigations.

    There seems far less special investigatory concern with the far more likely Russian collusion in the matters of the origins and dissemination of the Fusion GPS/Steele dossier, and its possible role in the Obama-administration gambit of improper or illegal surveilling, unmasking, and leaking of the names of American citizens.

    Leaks from the Mueller investigation so far abound. They have seemed calibrated to create a public consensus that particular individuals are currently under investigation, likely to be indicted — or indeed likely guilty.

    These public worries are not groundless. They are deeply rooted in the nature and liberal composition of the Mueller investigative team — whose left-leaning appointments just months ago had understandably made the liberal media giddy with anticipation from the outset. Wired, for instance, published this headline on June 14: “Robert Mueller Chooses His Investigatory Dream Team.” Vox, on August 22, wrote: “Meet the all-star legal team who may take down Trump.” The Daily Beast, two day later, chimed in: “Inside Robert Mueller’s Army.”

    Whose ‘Army,’ Whose ‘Dream Team,’ and Whose ‘All-Stars’?

    Special Counsel Mueller was himself appointed in rather strange circumstances. Former FBI director James Comey (now reduced to ankle-biting the president on Twitter with Wikipedia-like quotes) stated under oath that he had deliberately leaked his own confidential notes about conversations with President Trump, hoping to prompt appointment of a special investigator to investigate a president — whom he said, also under oath, that he was not investigating.

    Comey’s ploy worked all too well. Department of Justice officials, now in the Trump Justice Department but who once served in Barack Obama’s administration, selected Comey’s close friend and long associate Robert Mueller as investigator. From that germination, an innate conflict of interest was born — given that Mueller’s appointment assumed that Comey himself would not come under his own investigation, a supposition that may be increasingly untenable.

    Okay — but one such conflict of interest swallow does not make a discredited spring.

    But then there was the weird position of Comey subordinate and deputy director of the FBI Andrew McCabe. He ran the Washington, D.C., office that was involved in the Clinton email investigations. For some strange reason, McCabe did not recuse himself from the email investigation until one week before the presidential election, even though just months earlier his wife, Jill McCabe, had announced her Democratic campaign for a state senate seat in Virginia — and had received a huge donation of more than $675,000 from the political organizations of Governor Terry McAuliffe, a longtime Clinton supporter and intimate. Like it or not, the behavior of the FBI during the Clinton email investigations also extends to the Russian-collusion probe, especially as it pertains to the Clinton-funded Fusion GPS/Steele dossier.

    Okay — Washington is an incestuous place, and such conflicts of interest may be unavoidable. Perhaps McCabe himself was not really so directly involved in the FBI investigations of Clinton, and perhaps he had not even talked about the current Mueller investigations.

    But then it was announced that at least six of Mueller’s staff of 15 lawyers, who previously had donated (in some cases quite generously) to Hillary Clinton’s campaigns, were now investigating her arch foe Donald Trump.

    Okay — no doubt, such apparent conflicts of interests are not what they seem (given the overwhelming preponderance of liberal lawyers in general and in particular in Washington). After all, no one should be disqualified from government service for his or her political beliefs.

    But then we came to the inexplicable case of Peter Strzok, an FBI investigator assigned to the Mueller investigation of Russian collusion. Strzok and Lisa Page, a consulting FBI lawyer (part of Mueller’s once-ballyhooed “dream team”), were for some reason relieved from the investigation of Trump in late summer 2016. Mueller’s office refused to explain the departure of either, other than to let the media assume that the departures were both unrelated and due to normal revolving or transient appointments.

    Okay — even dream-teamers and all-stars occasionally move on, and the less said, the better.

    But then we learn that the two, while part of Mueller’s investigation of Trump, were having an extramarital affair, and exchanging some 10,000 texts, of which at least some were adamantly anti-Trump and pro-Clinton. One wonders, Why did that information, now confirmed, come out through leaks rather than through official Mueller communiqués? In other words, if there is nothing now deemed improper about the two Trump investigators’ amorous political expressions or in the anti-Trump nature of their exchanges, why was there apparently such a reluctance in August and September to avoid full disclosure concerning their abrupt departures?

    Okay — perhaps indiscreet electronic communications and affairs in the workplace are no big deal in Washington.

    But then Strzok apparently was also responsible for changing the wording of the official FBI report on the Clinton email affair. He crossed out the original finding of “grossly negligent,” which is legalese that under the statute constitutes a crime, and replaced it with “extremely careless,” which does not warrant prosecution.

    Okay — perhaps we can shrug and suggest that Strzok surely did not have the final say in such verbal gymnastics. Or perhaps his anti-Trump, pro-Clinton sentiments were not germane to his mere copy editing or his reliance on a thesaurus.

    But then we learned that Andrew Weissmann, who is another veteran prosecutor assigned to Mueller’s legal team, praised Sally Yates, an Obama-administration holdover at the Trump Department of Justice, for breaking her oath of office and refusing to carry out President Trump’s immigration order (Yates was summarily fired). “I am so proud,” he emailed Yates, on the day she publicly defied the president. “And in awe. Thank you so much. All my deepest respects.”

    Okay — it certainly does not look good that a disinterested government attorney investigating the president was so indiscreet as to write his admiration to a fellow Obama holdover who was fighting with Trump. But to give the anti-Trump attorneys the benefit of the doubt, perhaps Weissmann was merely reacting to Yates’s panache rather than to her shared political views?

    But then again, we learned that another attorney on the Mueller staff, Jeannie Rhee, was at one time the personal attorney of Ben Rhodes, the Obama deputy national-security adviser who is often mentioned as instrumental in making last-minute Obama-administrative-state appointments to thwart the incoming Trump administration. Rhee also provided legal counsel to the Clinton Foundation and was a generous donor to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

    Rhee seemingly could not be a disinterested investigator of Trump, given that she has had financial interests with those, past and present, who are fiercely opposed to the current likely target of her investigations.

    Okay — but perhaps in Washington’s upside-down world, lawyers are mere hired guns who have no real political loyalties and they investigate, without bias, those whose politics they detest. Why should they feel a need to be shy about their political agendas?

    But then again, most recently, it was disclosed that a senior Justice Department official, Bruce G. Ohr, connected with various ongoing investigations under the aegis of the Justice Department, was partially reassigned for his contact with the opposition-research firm responsible for the Clinton-funded, anti-Trump “dossier” — which in theory could be one catalyst for the original FBI investigation of “collusion” and thus additionally might be the reason cited to request FISA orders to surveil Trump associates during the 2016 campaign. And note that it was also never disclosed that Ohr’s wife, Nellie Ohr, whose expertise was Russian politics and history, actually worked for Fusion GPS during the 2016 campaign, when the opposition research firm’s discredited anti-Trump dossier alleging Russian collusion was leaked shortly before Election Day 2016.

    Okay — perhaps Ohr, as part of his job, was merely learning about aspects of the dossier from one of its owners, for future reference.

    But then again, we learned of the strange career odyssey of yet another person on Mueller’s legal team, Aaron Zebley (supposedly known in the past as Mueller’s “right-hand hand”). He once served as Mueller’s chief of staff while employed at the FBI and was also assigned to both the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division and the National Security Division at the Department of Justice. In addition, Zebley served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the National Security and Terrorism Unit in Virginia. Yet Zebley, as late as 2015, represented one Justin Cooper. The latter was the IT staffer who set up Hillary Clinton’s likely illegal and unsecure server at her home, and who purportedly smashed Clinton’s various BlackBerries with a hammer in fear they would be subpoenaed. Zebley had come into contact once earlier with congressional investigators, when he was legal counsel for Cooper — and yet Zebley now is on Mueller’s team investigating Donald Trump.

    What’s Next?

    By now there are simply too many coincidental conflicts of interest and too much improper investigatory behavior to continue to give the Mueller investigation the benefit of doubt. Each is a light straw; together, they now have broken the back of the probe’s reputation.

    In inexplicable fashion, Mueller seems to have made almost no effort to select attorneys from outside Washington, from diverse private law firms across the country, who were without personal involvement with the Clinton machine, and who were politically astute or disinterested enough to keep their politics to themselves.

    Indeed, the special-counsel investigation has developed an eerie resemblance to the spate of sexual-harassment cases, in which the accused sluff off initial charges as irrelevant, unproven, or politically motivated, only to be confronted with more fresh allegations that insidiously point to a pattern of repeated behavior.

    What then is going on here?

    No one knows. We should assume that there will be almost daily new disclosures of the Mueller investigation’s conflicts of interest that were heretofore deliberately suppressed.

    Yet Donald Trump at this point would be unhinged if he were to fire Special Counsel Mueller — given that the investigators seem intent on digging their own graves through conflicts of interest, partisan politicking, leaking, improper amorous liaisons, indiscreet communications, and stonewalling the release of congressionally requested information.

    Indeed, the only remaining trajectory by which Mueller and his investigators can escape with their reputations intact is to dismiss those staff attorneys who have exhibited clear anti-Trump political sympathies, reboot the investigation, and then focus on what now seems the most likely criminal conduct: Russian and Clinton-campaign collusion in the creation of the anti-Trump Fusion GPS dossier and later possible U.S. government participation in the dissemination of it. If such a fraudulent document was used to gain court approval to surveil Trump associates, and under such cover to unmask and leak names of private U.S. citizens — at first to warp a U.S. election, and then later to thwart the work of an incoming elected administration — then Mueller will be tasked with getting to the bottom of one of the greatest political scandals in recent U.S. history. Indeed, his legacy may not be that he welcomed in known pro-Clinton, anti-Trump attorneys to investigate the Trump 2016 campaign where there was little likelihood of criminality, but that he ignored the most egregious case of government wrongdoing in the last half-century.

    Source…

    See Also:

    (1) Trump lawyer wants separate special prosecutor to probe DOJ-Fusion conflicts

    (2) FBI’s McCabe ‘has an Ohr problem,’ will not testify on Tuesday, source says

    (3) Inside the Trump dossier handoff: McCain’s ‘go-between’ speaks out

     
  • Jack 1:05 pm on December 10, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: clinton legacy, dan de luce, , , elizabeth shackelford, foreign policy, , rex tillerson, state department exodus, ,   

    Career Shattered? 

    An award-winning U.S. diplomat who was seen as a rising star at the State Department has issued a scathing resignation letter, accusing Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and the Donald Trump administration of undercutting the State Department and damaging America’s influence in the world.

    Elizabeth Shackelford, who most recently served as a political officer based in Nairobi for the U.S. mission to Somalia, wrote to Tillerson that she reluctantly had decided to quit because the administration had abandoned human rights as a priority and shown disdain for the State Department’s diplomatic work, according to her letter, obtained by Foreign Policy.

    “I have deep respect for the career Foreign and Civil Service staff who, despite the stinging disrespect this Administration has shown our profession, continue the struggle to keep our foreign policy on the positive trajectory necessary to avert global disaster in increasingly dangerous times,” Shackelford wrote in her Nov. 7 letter, which is published below. One phrase was redacted on Shackelford’s request.

    “With each passing day, however, this task grows more futile, driving the Department’s experienced and talented staff away in ever greater numbers,” she wrote.

    Her former colleagues said her departure — and the sentiments expressed in her letter — reflect a wider exodus of midcareer diplomats who have lost confidence in Tillerson’s management and the Trump administration’s approach toward diplomacy.

    “She’s emblematic of what we’re losing across the board,” said one of Shackelford’s former State Department colleagues. “She is the best among us. We should not be losing the best among us. And that should concern people that we are,” the former colleague said.

    In her letter, Shackelford said she was leaving with a “heavy heart” as she recognized the potential of the State Department’s mission. She said she was “shocked” when Tillerson appeared to cast doubt on the importance of human rights in remarks to department employees on May 3.

    The State Department’s role in internal government debates also had “diminished,” she wrote, with the White House handing over authority to the Pentagon to shape the country’s foreign policy. Meanwhile, unfilled vacancies and proposed budget and staffing cuts had left the department adrift, with weakened influence inside the administration and on the ground, she wrote.

    “The cost of this is visible every day in Mission Somalia, my current post, where State’s diplomatic influence, on the country and within our own interagency, is waning,” she wrote.

    In the closing paragraph of her letter, Shackelford called on Tillerson “to stem the bleeding by showing leadership and a commitment to our people, our mission, and our mandate as the foreign policy arm of the United States.

    “If you are unable to do so effectively within this Administration, I would humbly recommend you follow me out the door.”

    Shackelford was singled out as an especially promising diplomat and was selected for future senior leadership roles, which a veteran foreign service officer said was exceptional at her age.

    When asked about the criticisms in the letter, State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert said: “We are not able to comment on the career choices of each person at the Department.”

    “However, I can say that the Secretary has made clear that his objective is to make the State Department more efficient, more effective, and for staff to have a much more rewarding and satisfying career,” she added.

    Tillerson has faced a wave of criticism from lawmakers and former senior diplomats about what they say is the dismantling of the State Department amid a hemorrhaging of top talent, a hiring freeze, and plummeting morale. He has firmly rejected the criticism, insisting the media mischaracterizes the rate of those leaving the department and that his plan to “redesign” the State Department is employee-driven and prioritizes the staff’s well-being.

    “What it’s done,” Tillerson said of the hiring freeze on Friday, “was just a little bit of a blunt instrument to have everyone be a little more disciplined about filling their positions.”

    But even his harshest critics say much of the blame for the troubled state of the foreign service rests with the president, who has shown an impatience with diplomacy and has often sidelined Tillerson.

    Shackelford’s sentiments also reflect a long-held but growing concern among diplomats and experts that U.S. policy is increasingly dominated and shaped by the military, particularly in Africa. The Pentagon has expanded its footprint and operations on the continent with additional funding while the State Department and USAID face steep budget cuts and a dearth of ambassadors or top appointees in Washington.

    Linda Thomas-Greenfield, a retired career diplomat and former assistant secretary of state for African affairs, said the U.S. military has a vital role to play in Africa and elsewhere but said the pendulum was swinging too far away from diplomacy. “You can’t just do military. You have to have the complement of diplomatic and development working alongside the military colleagues,” she told FP.

    Somalia reflects a balance that clearly favors the military, as the State Department lacks the manpower and resources of its Pentagon counterparts. In recent months, the U.S. military has expanded its role with hundreds of troops and more strikes against al-Shabab militants, while diplomatic efforts have ebbed following the departure of U.S. Ambassador to Somalia Stephen Schwartz in October.

    The staff at the U.S. mission have repeatedly asked Washington for permission to meet Somali political leaders at Villa Somalia, the presidential residence, but the State Department has rejected the request on security grounds. U.S. military officers are able to meet Somali officials at the presidential palace, and other foreign diplomatic missions regularly visit the building for talks.

    Friday was Shackelford’s last day as a foreign service officer after nearly eight years in the State Department.

    Born and raised in Jackson, Mississippi, the 38-year-old Shackelford graduated first in her class at the University of Pittsburgh Law School. She worked at a law firm, then the consulting company Booz Allen Hamilton on foreign aid projects before joining the foreign service in 2010.

    Shackelford distinguished herself in South Sudan for overseeing the evacuation of 1,000 Americans and other foreign nationals when violence erupted in Juba in December 2013. For her leadership skills and crisis planning in the evacuation effort, she received a department-wide Barbara M. Watson award for consular excellence.

    During her stint in South Sudan, Shackelford worked to document and focus attention on human rights abuses, according to those she worked with and a personal statement she submitted as part of an employee evaluation. She cultivated contacts with South Sudanese civil society organizations and met with victims and witnesses of atrocities committed in the country’s conflict. Convinced that there could be no lasting peace without coming to terms with crimes committed on both sides, she co-wrote a dissenting cable backed by some of her fellow diplomats making that argument.

    “Her view was if we don’t deal with accountability now, whatever peace that’s achieved is going to be temporary,” said another former colleague, who worked with her in Juba. “She made it her mission to get human rights material out the door.”

    Shackelford is not alone in accusing the Trump administration of backsliding on America’s support for human rights and democracy over the past ten months. Republican Sen. John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Sen. Ben Cardin, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, wrote a letter to the president on Friday accusing his administration of failing to assert America’s commitment to human rights.

    The lawmakers wrote that “for much of the past year, our national voice on international human rights issues has been largely silent.”

    But Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan told the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Thursday that in a recent tour of Africa, he repeatedly raised human rights concerns with governments in Ethiopia and Sudan, saying it was a crucial element in the fight against terrorist threats.

    “The United States continues to emphasize respect for human rights as a fundamental part of our counterterrorism strategy,” Sullivan told lawmakers.

    Six months ago, when Shackelford began considering leaving the foreign service, her mentors and colleagues encouraged her to stay the course, telling her she had a promising career ahead of her and that the difficulties would pass, she told FP.

    But in a sign of plunging morale in the foreign service, when she spoke to those same colleagues two months ago about resigning, she got a much different response.

    “It had completely changed to a person,” she said. “Nobody tried to talk me out of it. Everybody said, ‘Yep, I get it.’”

    Source…

    See Also:

    (1) Media Close 2017 Proving Trump 100 Percent Correct About Fake News

    (2) Nikki Haley Backs Trump’s Jerusalem Move in Face of Hostile UN: ‘Change is Hard’

    (3) Trump Demands Border Wall, Immigration Cuts at Swearing In of Pro-Amnesty DHS Secretary

     
  • Jack 3:06 am on December 9, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: clinton legacy, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,   

    Trumpophobic Idiocy 

    It is hard to believe that Trumpophobic idiocy can plumb depths more profound than it has reached in the last few days. Just as the Russian-collusion argument, which was never supported by anything except Hillary Clinton’s sulky evasions of her own responsibility for her electoral defeat, was sinking beneath the ripples the Trump-hating media had strenuously created for it, the Flynn indictment came. To anyone with any legal insight, such as Alan Dershowitz, Trey Gowdy, and Andy McCarthy (one of them should be the attorney general), it was the barefaced admission by Special Counsel Robert Mueller that, after nine months in charge of an investigation that had already been under way for eight months, he has absolutely nothing to justify continuing this charade within its original mandate to explore a Trump-Russian connection. Flynn was indicted for precisely the reason President Trump dismissed him as national-security adviser: lying about discussions with the Russians.

    The relief of the anti-Trumpers when the Flynn indictment gave them a lifeline to keep the impeachment dream alive in the minds of the fervent was inflated by ABC News’s bulletin that Flynn had alleged that Trump had told him to contact the Russian government before the election. This in itself would not have been worrisome — anyone can speak to Russians if they want — but it led to window-rattling ululations of Trumpophobic joy. Typical of it was the action of semi-comedienne (about as humorous as Al Franken) Joy Behar (whose book, The Great Gasbag, is, surprisingly, not autobiographical): She burst into applause and generated a standing ovation from the studio audience of her daytime television program. But it was fake news: Flynn claimed nothing of the kind. The reporter who produced the story, Brian Ross, had previously been reprimanded for suggesting that a mass murderer in Colorado several years ago was a member of the Tea Party when there was no evidence for that; and, in 2001, he suggested that Saddam Hussein was behind anthrax attacks in the U.S. when there was no evidence for that, either. Last week he was forced to recant and to withdraw his story, and was suspended without pay for four weeks. Ms. Behar was left with one hand clapping. The president, as has been his custom for two years, vehemently attacked fake news, with accuracy and effect. He debunked CNN by Twitter, eliciting the righteous falsehood of the egregious Wolf Blitzer that that network had served truth to the world for “nearly four decades.” Media solidarity fragmented on that whopper, as it was pointed out by several commentators that CNN had whitewashed Saddam, in order to maintain its bureau in Baghdad after other Western media had fled or been expelled by the Iraqi tyrant in 2003. Competitor Rupert Murdoch hit home when he claimed about 15 years ago that CNN’s Havana correspondent was Fidel Castro.

    When the president tweeted on the weekend that Flynn had been fired for lying to the FBI as well as to the vice president, he succeeded in stirring up another hornets’ nest of absurd confected outrage. Democratic senators Dianne Feinstein and Richard Blumenthal (the latter of whom had campaigned in 2010 referring to his service in Vietnam, a complete fabrication) torqued themselves up to agitation about a possible prosecution of the president for violating the Logan Act, and for obstruction of justice. The Logan Act of 1799, which prohibits private citizens from unauthorized attempts to conduct U.S. foreign policy, is nonsense constitutionally, and has never yielded a conviction or even been invoked since 1852. It does appear to have been a bugbear of official anti-Trumpism, having been bandied about for some time by many Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi and the beleaguered John Conyers. There has been some speculation that its potential violation was the pretext used by the Obama administration to conduct surveillance on the Trump campaign, an activity which, when revealed by Trump in March, led to much derision. It is a contemptible, nonsensical insinuation. No one officially complained when Senator Teddy Kennedy asked Soviet leader (and former KGB head) Yuri Andropov to join sensible Americans in opposing President Reagan’s foreign and defense policy, or when former special prosecutor Archibald Cox wrote every government in the world asking them not to cooperate with President George H. W. Bush in the Gulf War in 1991. MSNBC’s synchronized foamers-at-the-mouth, Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, tried to breathe new air into the flat tire of the 25th Amendment for replacing mentally and physically incompetent presidents.

    Launched on slightly sturdier legs was the claim that Trump had obstructed justice, because, if he knew that Flynn had lied to the FBI, his statement to Comey on January 27 that he hoped the FBI director would be able to avoid prosecuting Flynn was an attempt to obstruct justice, compounded by his subsequent dismissal of Comey. As Representative Gowdy explained in a television interview — having read all of Comey’s memos over the period — if Comey had thought he was being tampered with by the president, he withheld that from himself (and Comey has publicly stated that he did not feel that).

    The anti-Trumpers have been engaged in a demeaning mousetrapping exercise for a very long time. The Justice Department (in the person of subsequently fired deputy attorney general Sally Yates) apparently asked to interview Flynn, and specifically asked him about conversations with the Russians, only to check his responses against what they had already ascertained from tapping into telephone conversations of the Russian ambassador, seeking a discrepancy. Flynn was so relaxed about it that he was not accompanied by a lawyer — unusual for someone who might be accused of treason — and he probably mistakenly forgot the conversations (as the attorney general, Jeff Sessions, claimed he did with the same ambassador). But Flynn pleaded guilty to lying as a single count, presumably to get rid of the expense and strain of Mueller’s persecution in exchange for a shoestring to the special counsel to keep this sham investigation going.

    The Democratic retreat was impossible to disguise. Virginia senator Mark Warner, ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, who nine months ago was claiming there were a thousand Russian agents planting anti-Clinton comments in swing states in the election campaign, and that Russia had won Wisconsin for Trump (complete falsehoods), and claimed until recently that the Steele dossier was “taken seriously by Britain, our ally,” bumbled almost incoherently out of our television screens on the weekend about obstruction of justice. This must be the last trench of defense for this bedraggled cabal of myth-makers and slanderers. Allegations about Trump’s tax returns, the infamous Clinton-commissioned Steele dossier, the whole collusion nonsense, and the 25th Amendment foolishness have all crumbled, and we are left with a statutory relic from John Adams and an obstruction scenario that Trump described persuasively as “more fake news about another Comey lie.” This rubbish can’t have been much consolation in a week when Trump got his tax bill through the Senate; the Supreme Court allowed his immigration executive order to proceed, pending determination of the main issue; it came to light that Mueller had had to fire an overt Trump-hater, Peter Strzok (who had helped push Comey into letting Hillary Clinton go unprosecuted for more serious lies to the FBI than Flynn committed); and Roy Moore regained the lead in the Alabama Senate election.

    It is difficult to know whether President Trump deliberately pours gasoline on the fires of Democratic and conventional-media frustration with provocative tweets, or is just reckless; the most likely option is a combination of tactics and insouciance. His enemies almost always overreact and crunch their teeth into another nothingburger. He is clearly winning the long battle: Almost the entire congressional Republican caucus now accepts his leadership and is working to enact the Trump agenda that most of them opposed up to the election, and, as the tax bill shows, he is breaking through; the Democrats will shut the government down at their peril. But as he takes hold, the president should consider whether he doesn’t owe the country and his great office a de-escalation of the tweet-wars. By all means, communicate with the vast Trump constituency and ignore the dishonest media — but he could graciously forgo answering the most insignificant critics (like the ungrateful father of the basketball player he sprang from prison in China) and throwing raw meat in the faces of the Maddows, Blitzers, and Scarboroughs, entertaining though it is.

    It is also time for the visceral snobs and deranged Trump-haters to subside and allow a serious opposition to arise, that offers alternatives and does not start swinging before the ball is pitched and strike out every time. America deserves a dignified chief and a loyal opposition.

    © 2017 Conrad Black

    Receive the latest by email: subscribe to conrad black’s free mailing list

    Source…

     
  • Jack 3:23 am on December 8, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: bruce g. ohr, clinton legacy, , , , , , , , , ,   

    Dominoes 

    EXCLUSIVE: A senior Justice Department official was demoted this week amid an ongoing investigation into his contacts with the opposition research firm responsible for the anti-Trump “dossier,” the department confirmed to Fox News.

    Until Wednesday morning, Bruce G. Ohr held two titles at DOJ: associate deputy attorney general, a post that placed him four doors down from his boss, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein; and director of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF), a program described by the department as “the centerpiece of the attorney general’s drug strategy.”

    Ohr will retain his OCDETF title but has been stripped of his higher post and ousted from his office on the fourth floor of “Main Justice.”

    Initially senior department officials could not provide the reason for Ohr’s demotion, but Fox News has learned that evidence collected by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), chaired by Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., indicates that Ohr met during the 2016 campaign with Christopher Steele, the former British spy who authored the “dossier.”

    Later, a Justice Department official told Fox News, “It is unusual for anyone to wear two hats as he has done recently. This person is going to go back to a single focus—director of our organized crime and drug enforcement unit. As you know, combatting transnational criminal organizations and drug trafficking is a top priority for the Attorney General.”

    Additionally, House investigators have determined that Ohr met shortly after the election with Glenn Simpson, the founder of Fusion GPS – the opposition research firm that hired Steele to compile the dossier with funds supplied by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. By that point, according to published reports, the dossier had been in the hands of the FBI, which exists under the aegis of DOJ, for some five months, and the surveillance on Page had been commenced more than two months prior.

    Glenn Simpson met with a top DOJ official after the election, Fox News has learned.

    Former FBI Director James Comey, testifying before the House in March, described the dossier as a compendium of “salacious and unverified” allegations against then-candidate Donald Trump and his associates. The Nunes panel has spent much of this year investigating whether DOJ, under then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch, used the dossier to justify a foreign surveillance warrant against Carter Page, an advisor to the Trump campaign.

    The contacts between Ohr and Steele, and between Ohr and Simpson, have not been publicly disclosed nor shared with HPSCI staff.

    The panel has issued numerous subpoenas for documents and witnesses related to the dossier but claims DOJ and FBI have “stonewalled,” an assertion that House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., seconded in a rare public statement in October.

    While the agencies say they have cooperated extensively with Nunes and his team, including the provision of several hundred pages of classified documents relating to the dossier, it was only last weekend that DOJ and FBI agreed to make available to the committee for questioning Peter Strzok, the high-ranking FBI official who was disciplined in July for having sent-anti-Trump texts to a colleague while playing a decisive role in last year’s investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s private server.

    Strzok was removed from the staff of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who is probing allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, and demoted to a position on the FBI’s human resources division. The agencies’ decision to make Strzok available to House investigators came on the same day the New York Times and Washington Post disclosed the existence of the anti-Trump text messages, and Fox News disclosed that Strzok’s conduct in the Clinton case was under review by the FBI’s Office of Inspector General.

    The demotion of Ohr thus marked the second time within a matter of months that the Justice Department and the FBI have disciplined for misconduct a senior official connected in some form or fashion to the Trump-Russia case.

    According to congressional sources, Simpson and Ohr met sometime around Thanksgiving last year, when President-elect Trump was in the process of selecting his Cabinet, and discussed over coffee the anti-Trump dossier, the Russia investigation, and what Simpson considered the distressing development of Trump’s victory.

    How exactly Simpson and Ohr came to know each other is still being investigated but initial evidence collected by the House intelligence committee suggests that the two were placed in touch by Steele, a former FBI informant whose contacts with Ohr are said by senior DOJ officials to date back to 2006.

    Nunes, who has instructed HPSCI staff to draft contempt-of-Congress citations against Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray – preparatory to a House vote on whether the citations should be enforced – issued a fresh subpoena on Thursday specifically covering Ohr and his files.

    Source…

    See Also:

    (1) House Judiciary Republicans Call on FBI to Explain ‘Special’ Status for Clinton Email Probe

    (2) FBI agent Peter Strzok’s anti-Trump texts demanded by Senate

    (2) DOJ Reviewing More Than 10,000 Text Messages Between Anti-Trump Mueller Investigators: Report

    (3) Ex-CIA: Trump should just pardon ‘everyone’

    (4) ‘Resistmas’: the Hillary Christmas tree topper

    (5) Jerry Seinfeld Endorses Roy Moore?

    (6) Team Obama attempted ‘stealth coup’ by undermining Trump

     
  • Jack 10:44 am on December 6, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: clinton legacy, , , , , , hugh hewitt, , , , , , public anger, , , , , , washington post   

    Action Required 

    The Post reported that a former top FBI official, Peter Strzok, who had been assigned to and then removed from special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation, had “exchanged politically charged texts disparaging [President] Trump and supporting Democrat Hillary Clinton” and that Strzok was “also a key player in the investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server.”

    This is a blockbuster revelation, carrying the possibility of shattering public confidence in a number of long-held assumptions about the criminal-justice system generally and the FBI and the Justice Department specifically. The Justice Department should appoint a special counsel to investigate Strzok’s actions as soon as possible.

    The Strzok report comes on the heels of the widely derided Justice Department investigation into IRS discrimination against conservative groups, including the disposition of allegations against IRS senior official Lois Lerner, and after the wildly erratic behavior of then-FBI Director James B. Comey during 2016. It also follows the vote to hold then-Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. in contempt of Congress — the first ever against a sitting member of the Cabinet — with 17 Democrats voting in support. Mix into this battering of the Justice Department’s and FBI’s reputations the still-murky charges and counter-charges of abuse of “unmasking” powers during the waning days of the Obama era.

    As a result, a large swath of responsible center-right observers are demanding a full review of the investigation and prosecution powers wielded by the Obama-era Justice Department and FBI. Former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy wrote in National Review on Saturday that President Trump should call for a second independent counsel to investigate abuse of the counterintelligence authorities under President Barack Obama, abuses he suggests were undertaken to protect the controversial Iran deal on nuclear weapons.

    This is an excellent idea. The new special counsel could also review Strzok’s texts and, more crucially, his conduct throughout 2015 and 2016. Strzok may be completely innocent of everything except an offhand joke that the straight-laced Mueller deemed necessary to punish in a display of a “Caesar’s wife” sort of purity of purpose. But if his texts to FBI lawyer Lisa Page reveal a partisan animus toward Trump or admiration for Clinton, then the bureau and the department have a huge problem on their hands and not just with Strzok and Page.

    When FBI Special Agent Robert Hanssen was revealed to have committed espionage against the United States, it didn’t mean that even one other member of the bureau was guilty of Hanssen’s sins, but it did require a painstaking review of all of Hanssen’s activities and inputs, as all of them had to be reconsidered in light of his treasonous behavior.

    If Strzok’s texts reveal deep animus toward Trump or an operational effort to tilt one or more investigations, then all of his actions have to be reviewed to assure the public’s confidence in the bureau. That one or two agents or officials of the bureau are discovered to have been acting from improper motives would be bad enough. To try and sweep those activities under the rug would be worse. Against the backdrop of other recent controversies, it would be disastrous.

    Step one is a quick publication of the questionable texts. All of them. The public has a right to know what the predicate for Mueller’s extraordinary action was. The public also deserves a detailed account of Strzok’s (and Page’s) duties and authorities during the years in question. If an NBA official was discovered to have purposefully thrown even one game, every game in which he had carried a whistle would be under the microscope. That’s how it works.

    Unless there’s a coverup.

    Nevertheless, just as Hanssen was “one bad apple” who didn’t spoil the bunch, so even an out-of-bounds Strzok doesn’t necessarily mean anything about the FBI beyond him. To get to the truth, and restore confidence in federal law enforcement, a special counsel should conduct an inquiry, bring any necessary charges and make a report — someone without ties to the president or his opponents.

    They do exist, such men and women. Former federal judges make excellent candidates. But we need one appointed right now.

    Source…

    See Also:

    (1) Robert Mueller’s credibility plunging as Donald Trump probe implodes

    (2) The Incredible Tale of a Reckless, Partisan FBI Agent and Our Partisan Bureaucracy

    (3) Exclusive–Former Independent Counsel Slams ‘Brazen and Blatant Political’ Investigation of President Trump

    (4) Discovery of FBI Official’s Political Bias Clouds Hillary Clinton and Mike Flynn Investigations

    (5) Enough: FBI and Justice Department Corruption Needs to End

    (6) Is Flynn’s Defection a Death Blow?

    (7) Why weren’t Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills charged when they lied to Peter Strzok and the FBI?

    (8) Another One! Mueller Deputy Was Personal Attorney of Ben Rhodes, Represented Clinton Foundation

    (9) Mueller deputy praised DOJ official after she defied Trump travel ban order: ‘I am so proud’

    (10) Report: House Intelligence Committee to Begin Writing Contempt Resolution for FBI, DOJ Officials

    Watch:

     
  • Jack 11:21 am on December 5, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: alan m. dershowitz, clinton legacy, , , lt. gen. michael flynn, , , , , , ,   

    Legal Opinion 

    The charge to which retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn has pleaded guilty may tell us a great deal about the Robert Mueller investigation.

    The first question is, why did Flynn lie? People who lie to the FBI generally do so because, if they told the truth, they would be admitting to a crime. But the two conversations that Flynn falsely denied having were not criminal. He may have believed they were criminal but, if he did, he was wrong.

    Consider his request to Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the U.S., to delay or oppose a United Nations Security Council vote on an anti-Israel resolution that the outgoing Obama administration refused to veto. Not only was that request not criminal, it was the right thing to do. President Obama’s unilateral decision to change decades-long American policy by not vetoing a perniciously one-sided anti-Israel resolution was opposed by Congress and by most Americans. It was not good for America, for Israel or for peace. It was done out of Obama’s personal pique against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rather than on principle.

    Many Americans of both parties, including me, urged the lame-duck Obama not to tie the hands of the president-elect by allowing the passage of a resolution that would make it more difficult to achieve a negotiated peace in the Middle East.

    As the president-elect, Donald Trump was constitutionally and politically entitled to try to protect his ability to broker a fair peace between the Israelis and Palestinians by urging all members of the Security Council to vote against or delay the enactment of the resolution. The fact that such efforts to do the right thing did not succeed does not diminish the correctness of the effort. I wish it had succeeded. We would be in a better place today.

    Some left-wing pundits, who know better, are trotting out the Logan Act, which, if it were the law, would prohibit private citizens (including presidents-elect) from negotiating with foreign governments. But this anachronistic law hasn’t been used for more than 200 years. Under the principle of desuetude – a legal doctrine that prohibits the selective resurrection of a statute that has not been used for many decades – it is dead-letter. Moreover, the Logan Act is unconstitutional insofar as it prohibits the exercise of free speech.

    If it were good law, former Presidents Reagan and Carter would have been prosecuted: Reagan for negotiating with Iran’s ayatollahs when he was president-elect, to delay releasing the American hostages until he was sworn in; Carter for advising Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to reject former President Clinton’s peace offer in 2000-2001. Moreover, Jesse Jackson, Jane Fonda, Dennis Rodman and others who have negotiated with North Korea and other rogue regimes would have gone to prison.

    So there was nothing criminal about Flynn’s request of Kislyak, even if he were instructed to do so by higher-ups in the Trump transition team. The same is true of his discussions regarding sanctions. The president-elect is entitled to have different policies about sanctions and to have his transition team discuss them with Russian officials.

    This is the way The New York Times has put it: “Mr. Flynn’s discussions with Sergey I. Kislyak, the Russian ambassador, were part of a coordinated effort by Mr. Trump’s aides to create foreign policy before they were in power, documents released as part of Mr. Flynn’s plea agreement show. Their efforts undermined the existing policy of President Barack Obama and flouted a warning from a senior Obama administration official to stop meddling in foreign affairs before the inauguration.”

    If that characterization is accurate, it demonstrates conclusively that the Flynn conversations were political and not criminal. Flouting a warning from the Obama administration to stop meddling may be a political sin (though some would call it a political virtue) but it most assuredly is not a crime.

    So why did Flynn lie about these conversations, and were his lies even material to Mueller’s criminal investigation if they were not about crimes?

    The second question is why did Mueller charge Flynn only with lying? The last thing a prosecutor ever wants to do is to charge a key witness with lying.

    A witness such as Flynn who has admitted he lied – whether or not to cover up a crime – is a tainted witness who is unlikely to be believed by jurors who know he’s made a deal to protect himself and his son. They will suspect that he is not only “singing for his supper” but that he may be “composing” as well – that is, telling the prosecutor what he wants to hear, even if it is exaggerated or flat-out false. A “bought” witness knows that the “better” his testimony, the sweeter the deal he will get. That’s why prosecutors postpone the sentencing until after the witness has testified, because experience has taught them that you can’t “buy” a witness; you can only “rent” them for as long as you have the sword of Damocles hanging over them.

    So, despite the banner headlines calling the Flynn guilty plea a “thunderclap,” I think it may be a show of weakness on the part of the special counsel rather than a sign of strength. So far he has had to charge potential witnesses with crimes that bear little or no relationship to any possible crimes committed by current White House incumbents. Mueller would have much preferred to indict Flynn for conspiracy or some other crime directly involving other people, but he apparently lacks the evidence to do so.

    I do not believe he will indict anyone under the Logan Act. If he were to do so, that would be unethical and irresponsible. Nor do I think he will charge President Trump with any crimes growing out of the president’s exercise of his constitutional authority to fire the director of the FBI or to ask him not to prosecute Flynn.

    The investigation will probably not end quickly, but it may end with, not a thunderclap, but several whimpers.

    Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School and author of “Trumped Up: How Criminalizing Politics is Dangerous to Democracy.”

    Reprinted from The Hill with permission. Copyright 2017 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp.

    Source…

    See Also:

    (1) ABC News president excoriates staff over Brian Ross’ Michael Flynn error

    (2) Why is Robert Mueller even investigating the presidential transition?

    (3) Instapundit makes notes…

    (4) Trump calls Flynn treatment ‘unfair,’ claims Clinton ‘lied many times’ with impunity

    (5) Exclusive: Trump lawyer claims the “President cannot obstruct justice”

     
  • Jack 3:06 am on December 2, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: , , clinton legacy, , , , , , , , , , scott powell, , ,   

    Prosecute! 

    Few would deny that the ascendance of the United States from colonial poverty to the world’s top economic and military superpower in just 200 years is largely attributable to principles and rule of law in our founding documents enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. And so it should come as no surprise that America’s decline in the last 25 years has coincided with the erosion of the U.S. Constitution and the corruption of the nation’s law enforcement and judicial system.

    What has most greased the skids of America’s decline toward the ways of a banana republic is the emergence and acceptance of two-tiered justice and attendant cronyism and political corruption. And nowhere is this more obvious than in the pass given to the Clintons, and particularly former First Lady and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

    When the Clintons left the White House in 2001, taking with them over $190,000 worth of heirloom china, flatware, rugs, and furniture as they cleared out—much of which they later had to return—they claimed they were flat broke. Today their net worth exceeds $150 million, accumulated not by traditional means of work and investment, but rather by pay-for-play influence peddling through speeches and Clinton Foundation fundraising — with the tacit understanding that the Clintons would be in a position to return favors to donors after Hillary won the 2016 presidential election.

    A key function of our law enforcement and justice system is of course the punishment of lawbreakers. But perhaps more important is the judicial system’s function in preventing repeat or escalated lawbreaking and deterring other would-be copycat lawbreakers.

    It is a felony, punishable by fine and imprisonment up to 20 years, according to 18 U.S. Code 1519, to destroy, conceal, cover up or falsify any record or document whether on paper or on any digital device with the intent to impede or obstruct the investigation of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States.

    The pattern of deceit through withholding and destroying documents and records in order to obfuscate and facilitate self-dealing and political crime started early in Hillary’s career. While her husband would face impeachment, stiff monetary fines and a near million dollar settlement as well as disbarment for five years, Hillary Clinton skated with no accountability for anything in her checkered career.

    There were the missing records documenting the statistically impossible profits from cattle futures trading, the disappearance of Hillary Clinton’s billing records from the Rose Law Firm—under subpoena by Federal and Congressional investigators (which were found some two years later in the First Family quarters of the White House)—where she previously worked on matters related to the Whitewater real estate sham, the removal and destruction of a hard drive from the computer of her former Rose Law Firm partner and then White House Deputy Legal Counsel Vince Foster, whose death by gunshot wounds was ruled a suicide in the midst of the Whitewater investigation. And then there were the missing documents from the White House Travelgate firings—documents that would also surface after the scandal passed—showing Hillary’s duplicity and contradiction of her prior statements.

    As egregious, scandalous or unlawful as these were, it was small time and a warm-up for what was to come after Hillary became Secretary of State and insisted on using a private computer server and email address—about which she was warned would be vulnerable to hacking and security breaches. Her purpose in so doing was ostensibly to evade Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and Federal Government record keeping laws and obfuscate conflicts of interest such as indirectly helping the Clinton Foundation raise enormous sums from governments and parties with whom she was also interfacing as Secretary of State.

    But it all began to unravel after Hillary left office and was required to testify before a House committee on Benghazi in October 2015 and answer questions about the terrorist attacks on the U.S. Consulate on September 11, 2012. It was those hearings that brought to light the existence of Hillary Clinton’s secret, unsecured, do-it-yourself server. And then it was learned that she not only stored classified and top secret information in an unsecured location, but that she had also authorized the destruction of subpoenaed evidence—some 33,000 emails—after she was put on notice of the existence of the subpoena. These violations are felonies with stiff penalties and there were at least six other laws that appear violated for which Hillary could be indicted.

    What is now waking up Americans about the seriousness of Clinton family self-dealing and the need for prosecution is the realization that the Clintons were at the center of what appears to be the biggest political corruption scandal in U.S. history. The fact that the Clinton Foundation’s single largest aggregate donation of some $145 million came from various parties linked to the Uranium One sale to the Russian government nuclear agency Rosatum makes this the mega-case of Russian influence and corruption.

    Before the Declaration and the U.S. Constitution were even written, Samuel Adams observed that, “neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.” Political corruption in America has now become a cancer destroying people’s trust in government and their respect for the rule of law.

    The inclination to give a pass to high profile politicians once out of office would be a grave mistake. Boldness is needed and there is simply no more important or cathartic action to take to restore equality before the law and bring an end to cronyism and double standards than the prosecution of the masters of political corruption—the Clinton crime syndicate.

    Please adhere to our commenting policy to avoid being banned. As a privately owned website, we reserve the right to remove any comment and ban any user at any time.

    Source…

    See Also:

    (1) FBI investigating people animated by ‘Antifa ideology’

     
  • Jack 3:11 am on November 30, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: angelo codevilla, clinton legacy, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,   

    More Questions 

    The increasing energy going into the intractable issues that divide Americans is producing a vicious cycle naturally tending toward violence. Members of the bipartisan class atop our administrative-corporate state’s commanding heights believe they are entitled to rule inferior Americans, whose opinions they deem unworthy of respect. This has energized a sociopolitical revolt that has shrunk the Democratic Party’s hold on elective offices around the country and placed Republican leaders under siege by their own voters. As a result, there is no longer a major constituency for restraint.

    When Hillary Clinton put half of her opponents into a “basket of deplorables — racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, you name it,” and the other half into a basket to be pitied, she was merely explaining her party’s longstanding business model: make the Deplorables into something like outlaws, driving them to society’s margins by depriving them of recourse against the administrative state’s instruments as well as the prerogatives of major private institutions; grow programs that put more of society’s money into ruling-class hands, and use some of it to buy the Pitiables.

    Republican and independent voters are not about to be persuaded that they are deplorable or pitiable. In 2016 they wanted to force the Republican Party to fulfill its promises, and looked for candidates who would return the ruling class’ disdain — with interest.

    Donald Trump was elected to lead revolutions against the ruling class in general and the Republican establishment in particular. Mr. Trump did not create the hopes and resentments that elected him. Nor is it in any man’s power quite literally to “make America great again.” Even to try would require dismantling the ruling class that has grown upon us for three quarters of a century, and building up a different one. Nevertheless, Mr. Trump’s election fed the sentiments that elected him. But the reality of a ruling class more aggressive than ever has leavened them with disappointment and bitterness.

    The ruling class’ “resistance” to the 2016 election results expresses its evolving moral and intellectual character. Growling and barking, “Racist! Sexist! Homophobic,” and now “Nazi,” it bandies projects of which previously it had spoken softly, such as requiring all hospitals, doctors and nurses — including Catholic ones — to perform abortions or at least to training to perform them, mandating that Catholic schools admit homosexual and transgender students, and ensuring that online transactions on such websites as Airbnb comply with evolving anti-discrimination standards.

    It is also morphing the concept of “hate crime” into the criminalization of “hate speech” — meaning opposition to what these loving folks demand. In this regard, the Sept. 11 Joint Congressional Resolution identifies the political right with political violence and encourages those who wield the U.S. government’s vast powers to treat the ruling class’ sociopolitical opponents as public enemies.

    Mistakenly, the ruling class believes that Mr. Trump is the ultimate expression of a passing populism. Discredit him, crush the Deplorables, buy the Pitiables, and they can rule unopposed. But their problem was, is and will remain not Mr. Trump but the indelible resentments that they have aroused. As the Sept. 26 Alabama Republican primary showed, not even Mr. Trump himself can save the rulers from a population that has come to understand them too well.

    That is why whoever wins elections henceforth is certain to do so as the representative of one side of America, antagonistic to the other.

    Were any Democrat to be elected president in 2020 he would make Barack Obama look conservative. Radical expansion of the concept of hate speech would restrict the exercise of religion and punish reticence to conform, as well as political opposition. The public sector’s transformation into the ruling class’ private preserve would be completed. The conservative side of American life, looking back to 2017, would try its own version of “resistance.” But whereas Donald Trump responded to “resistance” with complaints, the next Democratic president’s response would be to punish opponents — ignoring court orders, marshaling friendly corporations, and even using the federal agencies’ SWAT teams against them. “Stop me if you can.” The conservative side of American life will see no alternative to civil, or even violent disobedience. Then what?

    Anyone elected in 2020 by the anti-establishment side would know that the left sees tolerance as a one-way street, that it is no longer capable of practicing it, that the Republican Party committed suicide by not fulfilling its constituencies’ desires on guns, abortion, religion, education, taxes and immigration. Hence, he has no choice but to fulfill them. The resistance of judges, bureaucrats and corporate executives would be even fiercer. A conservative administration would have no alternative but to sweep them aside. Then what?

    In either case, both sides have already transcended the American republic in their hearts. When will they do so with their hands? We have stepped over the threshold of a revolution. It is futile to speculate where it will end.

    Angelo M. Codevilla is professor emeritus of international relations at Boston University. A version of this paper was presented at a Claremont Institute symposium in Washington, D.C. on Oct. 26.

    Source…

     
  • Jack 3:13 pm on November 23, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: adelle nazarian, , , , clinton legacy, , , , , , , , , , , ,   

    Deceased? 

    Stephen K. Bannon believes that the Democratic Party’s obsession with identity politics will ultimately backfire against them. In fact, he believes this has broken the party to such a degree that it will never recover.

    The process has already begun.

    In his new book Bannon: Always the Rebel, released on Monday, Keith Koffler notes that the former White House Chief Strategist revealed a deep flaw in the Democratic Party’s hand that showed its poker face as a transparent window to the true nature of the party’s illusion of strength.

    It was through Bannon’s travel ban, which was expeditiously rolled out, that this revelation was made. The ban, quickly branded a “Muslim Ban” by the left, and some on the right, was intended to take attention off a second order that Bannon believed was much more significant; the “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements” order signed on January 25, which called for building a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border to keep illegal aliens out.

    Bannon, with the whiteboard in his office and his eagerness to check off Trump campaign promises as accomplished, took the brunt of the blame for the administration moving too quickly. But he says the uproar had its upside: It helped create “the resistance” that Bannon believes thoroughly delegitimizes the Democratic Party with average voters it needs to win elections. He claimed he knew the outrage was coming, and that the Left had fallen into a trap. “The Left bit on it, and created the resistance, and it blew up, and now it’s part of the political movement,” Bannon said. “It’s what’s broken the Democratic Party.”

    As Koffler points out in his book on Bannon, the left’s reaction to the temporary travel ban showed that the Democratic Party “has become a mere anti-Trump party that gives aid, comfort, and protection to sometimes violent street protestors.”

    He also noted Bannon’s belief that the Democratic Party’s addiction to divisive identity politics may succeed in stirring up much noise on the fringes, but that this very tactic will work against them among the very same minority groups they are using to cause an uprising.

    President Trump’s temporary ban targeted seven terror-prone states identified by President Barack Obama’s administration, pursuant to the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015. The word “Muslim” is not once mentioned in the text of the temporary ban and it does not cover 87 percent of the world’s Muslims, who largely live in other countries than those listed.

    Koffler writes, “Concluding that the United States was now serious about deporting them, illegal immigrants stopped showing up at the border. From February to June 2017, apprehensions at the border were down 58 percent compared to the same period a year earlier.” Homeland Security Department spokesman David Lapan is quoted in the book saying, “A lot of the discussion about changes in our enforcement policy and the way we are going about doing business, we believe that has deterred people. When you get here, it is likely you are going to get caught. You are going to be returned to your country.”

    Bannon: Always the Rebel is available for purchase at bookstores and online.

    Source…

     
  • Jack 3:23 am on November 23, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: , , clinton legacy, , , , , , ,   

    On “Deplorabilism” 

    There is lots of talk about a new nationalist populist worker movement.

    Supposedly, something quite new would institutionalize, define, and solidify the Trump base of aging Reagan Democrats, old Ross Perot independents, Tea Party remnants, newly disaffected Democratic workers, and a few returning libertarians and paleocons. Certainly, together they helped to swung the election in 2016.

    But what exactly would be the formal agenda of the proverbial deplorables and irredeemables? And how would it differ all that much from conservative Republicanism of generations past?

    After all, despite a much-hyped conservative civil war, a bitter primary, and a NeverTrump movement that won’t quiet, 90 percent of the Republicans in 2016 still voted for Trump. These voters assumed, like deplorable and irredeemable Democrats and Independents, that Trump would push conservative agendas. And they were largely proved correct.

    After 10 months of governance, Trump’s deregulations, a foreign policy of principled realism, energy agendas, judicial appointments, efforts at tax reform and health care recalibration, cabinet appointments, and reformulation at the Departments of Education, the EPA, and Interior seem so far conservative to the core.

    Illegal Immigration, Trade, and Realism

    In the few areas where Trump conceivably differed from his 16 primary Republican rivals—immigration, trade, and foreign policy—the 20th-century Republican/conservative orthodoxy was actually closer to Trump’s positions than to those of recent Republican nominees, John McCain or Mitt Romney.

    Vast majorities of conservatives always favored enforcement of federal immigration law rather than tolerance of sanctuary cities. They wanted to preserve legal, meritocratic, diverse, and measured immigration, not sanction open borders. And they championed the melting pot over the identity politics of the salad bowl.

    In sum, voters did not believe the United States could continue with open borders, or the idea that foreign nationals could cross the border illegally and at will, and then dictate to their hosts the circumstances of their continued residence—much less accuse their magnanimous hosts of racism and nativism for not accepting the demands of their advocates.

    All Trump did was return prior orthodoxy on border enforcement to the fore, albeit often with blunter rhetoric. He called out a loud but minority corporate interest on the Right that wanted cheap labor. And he questioned the wisdom of Republican officials who apparently saw appeasement of illegal immigration as a way to compete for the eventual votes of inevitable and huge annual influxes of illegal aliens.

    But again, the rise of the deplorables was not evidence of some new strain of xenophobia and nativism. Rather their views marked a return not just to Republican values, but also the majority position held by most Americans.

    On trade, every Republican knew that China, as well other developing and mercantile exporting countries cheated and, in effect, ignored agreements on trademarks, copyrights, and safety regulations.

    Trump riled up his base by demanding the government do what Republicans in the past had once assumed to be the commonplace view of things—although in a fashion less radical than the former tariff-policies of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Trump further opposed some of the policies of trade blocs like NAFTA. But as in the case of NATO, it is just as likely that in Art of the Deal style, Trump feigned much of his furor to give his subordinates greater leverage to renegotiate a fairer commercial and financial status quo.

    On foreign policy, Trumpism is a return to, or a refinement of, Reagan’s and the elder Bush’s principled realism: the acceptance that the United States has to protect its friends and deter its enemies, maintain the postwar order, avoid optional wars, and force allies in the West to shoulder the collective burden. A nation does not have to be perfect, but being better than the alternative, occasionally, should help it to earn American support

    Trump’s break from doctrinaire neoconservatism came not over punishing the Taliban and Saddam Hussein (despite Trump’s denials of his initial support for removing Saddam Hussein), but in seeking to rebuild both nations in the image of a Western constitutional state—a task often considered too costly in blood and treasure in the people’s strict cost/benefit analysis.

    Reactionary or Revolutionary?

    In this regard, Trumpism was again a sort of return to the Republican Party of the 1990s when the Republican-led Congress almost cut off funding for the Clinton Administration’s bombing efforts to remove Slobodan Milosevic—even as American jets were in the air over Kosovo. Certainly, in that aspect, late 20th-century Republicans were more isolationist than a 21st-century Trump.

    Again, the Trump foreign policy agenda is far closer to Ronald Reagan’s policies than past Republican nominees. Reagan in 1968, 1976, and 1980 was similarly demonized as an America First threat to Rockefeller Republicanism—whether renouncing the Panama Canal Treaty or opposing détente with the Soviet Union.

    So what drives deplorablism?

    It is not so much an ideological or even political movement as it is a spiritual and psychological frame of mind that is fed up with hypocrisies of the proverbial establishment, bicoastal cultural elites, and the deep administrative state.

    Deplorablism, Rightly Understood

    Deplorables grew furious as amnesty Democrats and especially corporate Republicans preached about the values of open borders and unchecked illegal immigration—but never quite experienced first-hand the effects their policies had on distant others. Influential advocates of lax border security tended to put their kids in private schools, lived in mostly apartheid communities, saw illegal aliens largely as cheap labor and personal servants, did not have any personal desire to live among, befriend, tutor or mentor those they championed—and assuaged their guilt by blasting their own fellow conservative with charges of xenophobia and nativism.

    I once experienced a lot of Republican orthodox disdain when I wrote Mexifornia in 2003 and discovered how unabashedly some elites believed that cheap labor should trump worries over routine lawbreaking, static wages of entry-level American laborers, and the impediments that that mass illegal immigration posed to the melting pot of assimilation and integration. In some sense, in 2003 the editorial position on illegal immigration of La Voz de Aztlan and the Wall Street Journal were almost indistinguishable.

    The deplorables were further enraged about national security that was never defined as predicated first on American interests abroad and at home. Nothing was more surreal than to read Vanity Fair in 2006 and learn that many of the architects of the Iraq War had bailed on the war in mediis rebus. Yet some of such critics had called for a preemptive strike against Iraq as early as the mid-1990s, during the Clinton Administration, as part of the Project for the New American Century agenda of preemptive war.

    But rather than to adhere to the old adage that the only thing worse than waging a bad war was to lose it, some who had sought optional wars were now perceived to have disclaimed the very ordeal that followed from the decisions they had once welcomed—even as more than 100,000 Americans were stuck fighting with vanishing elite support. “My perfect three-week invasion, your botched up occupation,” is not a legitimate fallback position once Americans are dying in the field.

    The point of calling for “fair” rather than “free” trade was to end the idea that commercial violations by rising powers were considered tolerable because they were better off in the family of nations than outside as renegades.

    In truth, the consequences of asymmetrical trade practices fell mostly on Americans who unfortunately were mired in industries considered passé, and therefore they were supposed to pass on with them. As one of “globalism’s sore losers,” I once wrote another book, Fields Without Dreams, chronicling the mass bankruptcies of farmers in a new globalized, vertically integrated world. Foreign subsidies, especially those of the European Union, had helped to crash some American commodity prices. Yet that fact was ignored, by the apology that such foreign cost-cutting at least drove down consumer prices. Foreign subsidies also supposedly forced farmers to “improve” their own domestic “productivity” to compete—and thus made us “leaner.” And ultimately we were assured that foreign subsidies would boomerang on their creators and prove self-defeating for cheating trade partners.

    All such arguments were, in theory, logical and were fine and noble thoughts. But again, they were applicable to a distant future—and to an “Other,” rather than immediately relevant to those who embraced such creative destruction agendas. These were also economic rationales that by needs ignored the cultural reality of agrarian annihilation—analogous to Hillary Clinton’s nostrums for the coal industry.

    Finally, the deplorables grew weary with sober and judicious Marquis of Queensberry campaigning rules.  Republicans had been losing nobly on the national level with presidential candidates who had not achieved 51 percent of the vote since 1988 and had lost the popular votes in five out of the last six elections—even as Republicans made substantial gains in Congressional, state, and local offices.

    Trump may have done no better in the popular vote and may have won ugly, but he won nonetheless against the odds and for now, showed that past political appeasement had done no better than fiery deterrence.

    In sum, “deplorablism” is mostly a style. The Trump agenda so far is mostly mainstream 20th-century Republicanism. To the degree it is not seen as such on trade, immigration, and foreign policy, it may be that it is far more traditionally conservative than what had become the de facto position of the 21st-century Republican Party.

    The departure from conservatism is not what the once liberal Democrat Trump has done since January, but what those who oppose him might likely do in his place.

    Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].

    Source…

     
  • Jack 3:26 am on November 21, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: , clinton legacy, ed klein,   

    “There’s More?!” 

    Edward Klein is the former editor in chief of the New York Times Magazine and the author of numerous bestsellers including his fourth book on the Clintons, Guilty as Sin, in 2016. His latest book is All Out War: The Plot to Destroy Trump was released on October 30, 2017. 

    Bill Clinton is facing explosive new charges of sexual assault from four women, according to highly placed Democratic Party sources and an official who served in both the Clinton and Obama administrations.

    The current accusations against the 71-year-old former president — whose past is littered with charges of sexual misconduct — stem from the period after he left the White House in 2001, say the sources.

    Attorneys representing the women, who are coordinating their efforts, have notified Clinton they are preparing to file four separate lawsuits against him.

    As part of the ongoing negotiations, the attorneys for the women are asking for substantial payouts in return for their clients’ silence.

    A member of Clinton’s legal team has confirmed the existence of the new allegations.

    President Clinton, here with residents at the William Rivera Betancourt Vocational School which was turned into an emergency shelter in Canovanas, Puerto Rico, is facing accusations of sexual assault from four unidentified women, highly placed Democratic Party sources told author Ed Klein

    President Clinton, here with residents at the William Rivera Betancourt Vocational School which was turned into an emergency shelter in Canovanas, Puerto Rico, is facing accusations of sexual assault from four unidentified women, highly placed Democratic Party sources told author Ed Klein

    The women alleged the former president assaulted them in the early 2000s, during the time Clinton was working with playboy billionaire investor Ron Burkle (pictured together in 2006)

    The women alleged the former president assaulted them in the early 2000s, during the time Clinton was working with playboy billionaire investor Ron Burkle (pictured together in 2006)

    The unidentified women were employed in low-level positions at the Burkle organization and in their late teens at the time of the alleged assaults. Clinton helped Burkle generate business and flew around the world on Burkle's private jet, which was nicknamed 'Air F**k One' (pictured)

    The unidentified women were employed in low-level positions at the Burkle organization and in their late teens at the time of the alleged assaults. Clinton helped Burkle generate business and flew around the world on Burkle’s private jet, which was nicknamed ‘Air F**k One’ (pictured)

    Back in the late 1990s, Clinton paid $850,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit by Paula Jones, a former Arkansas state employee whose case led to Clinton’s impeachment in the House of Representatives and his subsequent acquittal by the Senate in 1999.

    The negotiations in the new lawsuits are said to have reached a critical stage.

    If they fail, according to sources in Clinton’s inner circle, the four women are said to be ready to air their accusations of sexual assault at a press conference, making Clinton the latest — and most famous — figure in a long list of men from Harvey Weinstein to Kevin Spacey who have recently been accused of sexual assault.

    The new allegations refer to incidents that  took place more than 10 years ago, in the early 2000s, when Clinton was hired by Ron Burkle, the playboy billionaire investor, to work at his Yucaipa companies.

    Clinton helped Burkle generate business and flew around the world with a flock of beautiful young women on Burkle’s private jet, which was nicknamed ‘Air F**k One.’

    The four women, who have not yet revealed their identities, were employed in low-level positions at the Burkle organization when they were in their late teens and claim they were sexually assaulted by the former president.

    The 71-year-old politician has been followed throughout his years in public office with allegations of sexual misconduct, reaching its peak with the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Pictured: Clinton with White House intern Lewinsky in 1998 

    The 71-year-old politician has been followed throughout his years in public office with allegations of sexual misconduct, reaching its peak with the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Pictured: Clinton with White House intern Lewinsky in 1998

    Back in the late 1990s, Clinton paid $850,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit by Paula Jones

    She was a former Arkansas state employee whose case led to Clinton's impeachment in the House of Representatives and his subsequent acquittal by the Senate in 1999

    In the late 1990s, Clinton paid $850,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit by Paula Jones (left and right), a former Arkansas state employee whose case led to Clinton’s impeachment in the House of Representatives and his subsequent acquittal by the Senate in 1999.

    The new charges are likely to revive the debate over why Democrats defended Clinton and why liberals and feminists ignored credible charges of sexual assault against Clinton from Juanita Broaddrick (pictured)

    Kathleen Willey

    The new charges are likely to revive the debate over why Democrats defended Clinton and why liberals and feminists ignored credible charges of sexual assault against Clinton from Juanita Broaddrick (left) and Kathleen Willey (right)

    There is no evidence that Burkle knew anything about these alleged assaults by Clinton.

    Contacted for a comment on the women’s allegations, a member of Clinton’s legal team said: ‘Obviously, I’m aware of [the allegations] but can’t talk about them.’

    The new charges are likely to revive the debate over why Democrats defended Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal and why liberals and feminists ignored credible charges of sexual assault against the 42nd president, not only from Paula Jones, but also from Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and others.

    ‘Bill is distraught at the thought of having to testify and defend himself against sex charges again,’ said a Democratic Party official who is familiar with the case.

    ‘He hopes his legal team can somehow stop the women from filing charges and drag him through the mud.’

    The source added that Hillary Clinton is furious with her husband for getting entangled in yet another sexual scandal.

    Hillary Clinton allegedly offered to hire private detectives to find dirt on the new accusers, but Clinton's legal team advised against it, sources said

    Hillary Clinton allegedly offered to hire private detectives to find dirt on the new accusers, but Clinton’s legal team advised against it, sources said.

    'Bill spends a great deal of his time in his penthouse apartment above the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock. Hillary occasionally goes to Little Rock, but she refuses to stay in the apartment because she knows that's his love nest,' a source said

    ‘Bill spends a great deal of his time in his penthouse apartment above the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock. Hillary occasionally goes to Little Rock, but she refuses to stay in the apartment because she knows that’s his love nest,’ a source said.

    She reportedly offered to hire private detectives to dig up dirt on the women, but Bill Clinton’s attorneys persuaded her to not interfere.

    ‘In the past Hillary had a team of detectives that managed to silence a number of women in Little Rock who had complaints about Bill’s unwanted sexual advances,’ said the source.

    Klein's latest book, All Out War: The Plot to Destroy Trump, was released on October 30, 2017

    Klein’s latest book, All Out War: The Plot to Destroy Trump, was released on October 30, 2017

    ‘But now Hillary admits there’s a different atmosphere in our culture about sexual harassment and it’s not possible to intimidate women into silence about charges once they make up their mind to speak up.

    ‘Hillary wants to remain in the public eye as a leader of the resistance to Donald Trump and play a major role in politics for years to come, including maybe even running for president again in 2020,’ the source continued.

    ‘She’s afraid this latest scandal could destroy the Clinton legacy and torpedo her plans.

    ‘The relationship between Bill and Hillary has been more of a business relationship for a number of years, except when it comes to their daughter and grandchildren.

    ‘They haven’t lived as man and wife for a number of years, mostly due to Bill’s running around with other women.

    ‘It became obvious years ago that even age wasn’t going to make Bill settle down and stop chasing women. Hillary has simply ignored it and lived her separate life.

    ‘Bill spends a great deal of his time in his penthouse apartment above the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock.

    ‘Hillary occasionally goes to Little Rock, but she refuses to stay in the apartment because she knows that’s his love nest.’

    Source…

     
  • Jack 3:24 am on November 16, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: , clinton legacy, , , , , , , , ,   

    Justice Required 

    No person in this country is so high that he or she is above the law. This includes Hillary Clinton.

    There is no station in life or standing in government or political aspiration that absolves someone from criminal conduct. In this way, we are all creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. An orderly society cannot function if it permits individuals to disregard the law with impunity.

    This fundamental principle, enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court more than a century ago, is what gives sustenance to our democracy. Without it, lawlessness, chaos and tyranny at the hands of the few would inexorably ensue.

    It follows, then, that Clinton is no higher or lower than any American. She must abide by the rule of law regardless of her condition or circumstance. Running for high office, including the presidency, does not somehow establish an entitlement to legal absolution.

    Yet, this essential doctrine seemed to be entirely lost on Democrats during Tuesday’s hearing by the House Judiciary Committee in which Attorney General Jeff Sessions testified.

    Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the ranking Democrat, asked the following question: “In a functioning democracy, is it common for the leader of the country to order the criminal justice system to retaliate against his political opponents?”

    Sessions responded that “the Department of Justice can never be used to retaliate politically against opponents and that would be wrong.”

    Conyers, a notorious partisan, appears to have deliberately misstated both the law and the facts. The Justice Department is duty-bound to investigate acts that appear to have violated criminal statutes. If there is sufficient evidence to support an indictment of charges, our system of justice demands they be brought.

    This is not retaliation, as Conyers would have people believe, but the enforcement of laws unimpeded by political motivations.

    Clinton is not exempt merely because she ran for the presidency and lost. If that were the case, anyone could rob a bank and be excused from punishment by becoming a candidate for office.

    Sessions has been lethargic in determining whether the criminal prosecution of Clinton is warranted. On July 27, Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee sent a letter to the attorney general demanding that he appoint a special counsel to investigate alleged wrongdoing by Clinton in the controversial sale of a uranium company to Russia. Sessions never responded. A second letter in September was also ignored.

    Finally, on the eve of his testimony, Sessions advised the committee that he had, indeed, directed senior federal prosecutors to evaluate whether a special counsel is needed. There is compelling evidence that Clinton may have used her office as secretary of state to confer a benefit to the Russian government in exchange for money.

    If a “pay-to-play” scheme helped secure the sale of 20 percent of America’s uranium assets to Russia while enriching Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton and their foundation, it would constitute various crimes including bribery, mail fraud, wire fraud and, arguably, racketeering.

    The committee has requested that a special counsel also reopen the Clinton email case to ascertain whether actions taken by then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch and then-FBI Director James Comey may have obstructing justice in an effort to exonerate Clinton.

    If so, then the question of whether Clinton violated the Espionage Act in mishandling 110 classified documents found on her unsecured and unauthorized personal server must be re-examined for potential criminal charges against her.

    As I have argued in columns for several months, the attorney general has no choice but to appoint a special counsel and must do so immediately. During his confirmation hearing on Jan. 10, Sessions vowed to recuse himself from any questions involving “both the Clinton email investigation and any matters involving the Clinton Foundation.”

    Therefore, he must hand the entire matter over to a special counsel in order to comply with his promise under oath and to eliminate his admitted conflict of interest.

    President Trump has criticized Sessions for his conspicuous failure to pursue investigations into Clinton and others in the Obama administration for their suspected criminality. President Trump was right to do so and is well within his constitutional authority to voice his concern.

    It is a complete myth perpetuated by the media – and reiterated by Conyers during Tuesday’s hearing – that a president may not be engaged in criminal cases at the Department of Justice. There is not a single law prohibiting him from directing the department to pursue any matter that merits criminal prosecution.

    To the contrary, under Article II of the Constitution the president is specifically empowered to enforce all laws – something often accomplished by instructing the Justice Department to take action. Agencies and departments in the executive branch are not independent. They are constitutionally under the direction of the president. He may tell them what to do and what not to do.

    Over the course of our nation’s history, presidents have been intimately involved in both civil and criminal cases. President Thomas Jefferson ordered his attorney general to prosecute Aaron Burr for treason. President John F. Kennedy ordered his Justice Department to intervene in multiple civil rights cases.

    A president may not abuse his office to pursue political vendettas under the guise of criminal prosecutions. But where there is sufficient evidence of illegality, he has every right to demand that the law be enforced. His failure to do so would constitute an egregious breach of his constitutional duty.

    The more we learn about the machinations of Hillary Clinton and the unscrupulous nature of her dealings as secretary of state and, later, as a presidential candidate, the more we have come to learn that the trajectory of her political career has been punctuated by a sense of privilege and entitlement that transcends the law.

    It is time she face the consequences of her actions and the scrutiny of a special counsel.

    Source…

     
  • Jack 3:23 am on November 16, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: clinton legacy, , , , , , , , , ,   

    Searching 

    Jeff Sessions is a man in search of a banana peel. When he can’t find one to step on, he supplies his own.

    Sessions is not a bad man, but he is a bad attorney general, as he demonstrated again Tuesday.

    By writing to Republicans in Congress just hours before he was scheduled to testify that he was open to appointing a special prosecutor to examine former FBI Director James Comey’s handling of Hillary Clinton’s e-mail case and the notorious Uranium One deal, Sessions primed the pump for a really big show.

    Democrats arrived furious and Republicans gleefully expected an ah-ha moment. Both came away unsatisfied and unhappy.

    Unfortunately for Sessions, the old conceit in journalism — that if both sides are angry at your story, you’ve done something right — doesn’t apply to being attorney general. When nobody’s happy, including your boss, you’re failing.

    While Democrats and Republicans are angry at Sessions for different reasons, there’s no rule saying both can’t be right.

    The litany of things he couldn’t remember or couldn’t discuss seemed calculated to frustrate rather than enlighten. The fact that he thought non-answers to big questions would be good enough reflects how poorly he fits his job.

    His faulty judgment has become a calling card, which is why I’ve argued that appointing Sessions was Trump’s biggest personnel mistake; yesterday’s performance did nothing to change my view.

    There’s also a new bonus reason: had Sessions stayed as a senator from Alabama, Roy Moore’s dirty history would have remained a secret instead of a national scandal that could help flip Senate control.

    Sessions’ decision to recuse himself, then tell Trump, from anything related to the 2016 campaign led to the enormous cloud over the White House that has distorted the first year of the new presidency.

    Consider the alternative. Imagine that Robert Mueller were still in private law practice, and there were no open-ended investigation of everybody connected to the Trump campaign.

    Then all of Washington would have to accept the election as settled and deal with Trump as president, not as a pinata on a short-term lease.

    So while Trump erred in naming Sessions, Sessions is responsible for taking the job when he knew he would have to sit out the most important matter before his agency, one that increasingly smells like an extension of the Democrats’ bid to overturn the election.

    In that sense, it was especially galling that Sessions refused to answer direct questions about the Russian dossier prepared for Clinton’s campaign, including whether the FBI under Comey paid the author and used the document to request wiretaps on Trump associates. Sessions never gave a reason why he couldn’t answer such important questions.

    Then there’s the Uranium One deal, which allowed Russia to gain control of 20 percent of America’s uranium supply. On its face, the 2010 deal made little sense but drew little attention because so little was known of it.

    That was by intent, with the role of an FBI informant who blew the whistle on the crimes of an involved Russian company kept secret as the Obama administration, including then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, green-lighted the deal.

    Soon, a gusher of money flowed the Clintons’ way, with Bill getting a $500,000 speaking gig in Moscow and as much as $145 million going to the Clinton Foundation from parties with a stake in the transaction.

    That Mueller was the head of the FBI then, and Rod Rosenstein was the US Attorney in Maryland, is not incidental. Both played major roles in a case that now looks like a cover-up, yet they are now deciding the fate of the Trump presidency.

    Rosenstein, as Sessions’ deputy, assumed his powers after the recusal and named his friend Mueller special counsel. Neither they nor Comey should be above scrutiny or rules governing conflicts of interest.

    In obvious ways, Sessions’ letter saying he was open to a new special counsel for these issues looked like both a tit-for-tat move and a response to Trump’s demands to investigate Clinton.

    Those suspicions were raised by Dems, which was both inevitable and pointless. The only test that matters is whether the former administration tried to hide facts that would have killed the uranium deal, whether the former secretary of state gave her approval in exchange for a windfall, and whether the probe of her e-mails was rigged by the Obama Justice Department.

    Yet once again, Sessions quibbled with most of those questions rather than answer them directly, leaving confusion about why he wrote the letter in the first place and whether he actually intends to do anything.

    Because of the Moore mess and Trump’s unhappiness with Sessions, the White House has floated the idea that Sessions might want to go back to his Senate seat. The move could simultaneously solve two problems, and though it would be tricky, Sessions’ latest flubs prove it is the best possible outcome.

    Source…

    See Also:

    (1) AG Sessions: ‘Something Is Lost Whenever You Provide an Amnesty’ to Illegal Aliens

    (2) Sessions: DOJ Might Go After Press For National Security Leaks

    (3) Media Freak Out After Sessions Suggests He’ll Subpoena Reporters

    (4) Jeff Sessions: ‘Not enough basis’ for special counsel to investigate Hillary Clinton

    (5) Sessions says he has ‘no reason to doubt’ Moore accusers

    (6) What Jeff Sessions’s Hearing Proved

    (7) Jeff Sessions can save Republicans from Roy Moore mess in Alabama

     
  • Jack 3:32 am on November 15, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: , , clinton legacy, , , , , , ,   

    The Maniae 

    America is in another of its Salem moments. Frenzy is almost a living, breathing monster. It moves from host to host, fueled by rumor, gossip, and self-righteous furor.

    The Greeks knew well of the transitory nature of these mass panics. They claimed such fits were inspired by the Maniae, the three daughters of Night who were the goddesses of insanity, madness, and crazed frenzy. We’ve seen all three of them in action throughout the past year.

    Collusion Everywhere and Nowhere

    For about six months, cable news shows, the internet, and the major newspapers ginned up the charge of “Russian collusion”—as a means of explaining the otherwise inexplicable and unacceptable defeat of Hillary Clinton by someone without either political or military experience.

    Pundits and talking heads without evidence echoed each other with ever more preposterous charges. Voting machines supposedly had been rigged by a monstrous man who later had stooped to remove the Martin Luther King bust from the West Wing. We were also told that all good souls of the Electoral College clearly should have vitiated their constitutional duties and denied Trump the presidency.

    We were lectured at the height of the collusion frenzy that Trump would be 1) impeached, 2) removed by the emoluments clause, 3) forced to resign under the 25th Amendment, or 4) simply quit in shame.

    If not, how many ways could (or should) one kill Trump? Hanging? Decapitation? Dismemberment? Combustion? Shooting? Stabbing? Jet crash? As the madness grew, no obscenity from Stephen Colbert or physical threat from Robert DeNiro or Johnny Depp or Kathy Griffin or even Snoop Dogg seemed to suffice to express hatred of Trump.

    The font of this 24/7 hysteria was the Clinton campaign’s purchase of a leaked smear job from an opposition research firm, which in turn had hired a disreputable former British intelligence agent, who had paid for concocted Russian slanders designed to disrupt an election. The Fusion GPS/Steele dossier was peddled to U.S. intelligence agencies, some of whom may have seen it as valuable political fodder and thus used it as an excuse to surveille members of the Trump campaign and in turn, unmask the names of American citizens and allow them to be leaked to the press. “Collusion” may turn out to have been sired, grown, and spread from a single, fake, and partisan document.

    But now suddenly the hysteria is cooling. Robert Mueller’s own possible ethical conflicts of interests and increasingly bizarre agendas, the Clinton Uranium One scandals, the strange exemptions given the Clinton email debacle, and House Intelligence Committee investigations into unmasking and the origins of the Steele dossier dialed back the frenzy.

    Sages in Helmets and Pads

    The hysteria then moved on to the once dormant NFL “take a knee” protests, which were reignited by Trump’s public castigation of the players.

    Soon the players’ incoherent messaging was passed off by the media as some sort of grassroots Rosa Parks civil rights movement. But as viewers turned their channels and stadia emptied, the hysterical outbursts began to cool.

    Money, not the cause of winning hearts and minds to the cause of social justice, became the greater player and owner concern. It is hard to sustain outrage about NFL racism when twentysomething multimillionaires, in a league of over 75 percent African-Americans, insult the sources of their income by refusing to stand for the National Anthem—and belatedly come to realize that the logical trajectory of their supposed principled demonstrations is their own irrelevance and eventual impoverishment.

    What cooled the NFL hysteria was the reality that the hyped story of “taking a knee” was morphing into the scarier narrative of less money, an absence of politically correct proportional representation among players, looming league downsizing, pampered athletes, traumatic brain injuries, and a public weariness with everything from ESPN to Colin Kaepernick. In other words, taking a knee reminded about 20 percent of NFL fans that there were already reasons enough to turn the channel. And so they did.

    The Maniae then passed on to more new prey.

    The Statue Busters

    About the same time came the statue hysteria. America woke up one day and decided that century-old statues of Confederate generals or archetypical southern soldiers were proof of pernicious racism. So they had to be removed—by the dead of night and by the mob if necessary. Once these iconic impediments were gone, then social justice would be achieved, as if mute stones, not beating human hearts, explain deteriorating racial relations.

    As the frenzy spread and the virtue signaling characteristically escalated, the sin of 2017 was no longer just the 156-year-old Confederate secession from the Union, but politically incorrect sin in general—a remark from Lincoln deemed racist, or the slaveholding of the Jefferson and Washington families, or indigenous peoples mistreated by Columbus. Apparently, the mob reasoned that the present generation alone could best judge the past by its own transitory standards of probity—while being exempt from future charges that it, too, will be culpable for all sorts of moral lapses and pathologies. A generation that cannot even walk in safety at night in many of its major cities or fears contracting Hepatitis A from city sidewalks does not have the pre-tech, material excuses of a Dickensian London.

    The internet, cable-TV, and social media mob predictably soon tired with statue smashing and moved on. After all, when one’s negative traits alone define a person, and present morality supersedes time and space to become the arbiter of the past, then everyone stands condemned—progressives perhaps most of all. Was not the liberal saint Margaret Sanger a eugenicist racist? Was not Woodrow Wilson a segregationist reprobate? Was not Leland Stanford a white supremacist? Are the names of such progressive icons to be Trotskyized too from statues and universities on the principle that the worst of a man defines his totality—or are there suddenly to be found extenuating circumstances?

    From Harvey to Everyone

    The next collective furor arose over Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein. Sometime in October 2017, the progressive film titan was abruptly condemned as sick, evil, and unhinged—after 30 years of common knowledge that he routinely sought to use his power of hiring and firing to leverage or force sexual gratification.

    Once Weinstein’s progressive armor was pierced and he was exposed as a groper, assaulter, and likely rapist, then dozens, perhaps hundreds of similar stories of powerful media and film men surfaced. Some were not only pronounced guilty of past consensual though asymmetrical sexual relationships but of abusive sexual acts and cruelty. Apparently, the mostly progressive male entertainment and media hierarchy had long equated the 1960s-era liberal legacy of “sexual freedom” with a blank check for their own sexual coercion and phallic exhibitionism. We all had assumed a continuity of Hollywood culture of updated Harry Cohns, but Hollywood’s preemptive moral finger-pointing at others apparently allowed their hypocrisies to stay in-house.

    As the collective furor grew, the net widened. More stories, but from 10, 20, 30, and 40 years past, surfaced—calibrated to the current celebrity or perceived visibility of the perpetrator. The charges initially also ranged from horrific (and quite believable) allegations of rape and gross groping and assault to what used to be called male-power rudeness and bullying—and eventually including even the occasional crudity and stupidity that can accompany seduction.

    Soon, we assumed that if our celebrities, journalists, and politicians were power-hungry sexists and worse, then all of American manhood must be, too. Everyday Joes, for now, were saved from belated and embarrassing post facto accounting only by their ordinary stations that made confessions of their sins of little collective interest.

    As in the case of the other hysterias, such collective fits cool when they begin to snare the supposedly exempt—marque reporters, famous authors, prominent politicians—and morph well beyond the original and quite legitimate charges of sexual assault to include rude come-ons and callous, narcissistic and cruel behavior. But when married couples of 40 years begin to think back about whether they too were ever crude in their 20s and 30s or exploitive in their own courtship, then everyone is guilty, and thus no one is guilty and the hysteria subsides.

    Who Polices the Police?

    Hysterias are not the same as fantasies in that they usually start with some legitimacy.

    The Russians always liked to interfere and gum up American elections. It is, after all, the credo of Vladimir Putin to be mostly against what America is mostly for. But as the Obama Administration warned in a dig at Donald Trump (shortly before the election, when it was sure that Hillary Clinton was to be its picked successor), such Russian attempts at election sabotage usually were irrelevant and largely impotent. Instead, what fed the furor was not collusion facts per se, but the idea of yet another post-election weapon to take Trump out before he could dismantle the Obama bureaucratic and executive-order legacy.

    Certainly, it is bothersome that the racist and founder of the Ku Klux Klan, the brilliant but diabolical slave-trading Nathan Bedford Forrest, is still worshiped in bronze and stone. But the stone smashers lacked the education and ethics to differentiate individual Confederates like a Forrest from a Longstreet, and so smashed boldly on.

    The distance from Lincoln to Lee narrows to almost nothing. Every mute statue becomes a sinner and fair game for the more authentic revolutionary to outdo the latest violent act.

    Dozens, perhaps hundreds of women have had their entertainment careers ruined by choosing to fight off the crude assaults of the Weinsteins and their ilk, who sometimes gravitate to the top of entertainment and media, masking their depravity by claiming progressive exemptions and penances. But at this point in the frenzy, most Americans cannot keep up with whether a puffed up and arrogant Dustin Hoffman three decades ago was an uncouth potty mouth in his celebrity trailer as he sought to seduce vulnerable women. Most of the public had long assumed such creepy Hollywood behavior anyway.

    What then causes often legitimate writs abruptly to explode into collective fits that end up either ensnaring the innocent or taking legitimate concerns beyond human reason? In our Jacobin frenzy, is it now still permitted to listen to folksy Shelby Foote in Ken Burns’ Civil War documentary, or to hear Joan Baez’s version of “The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down,” or to read Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita? Have you or have you not ever read Death in Venice?

    Human nature is prone to a herd mentality and the politics of excess. Groupthink offers a sense of belonging and reinforcement to most people. Democracies in particular in their radical egalitarian culture and exalted sense of self-righteousness are particularly prone to shared frenzies. In volatile democratic culture, today’s sensational scoop becomes passé by tomorrow.

    Social media, smartphones, the internet, and cable news are accelerants—as we saw in the Duke Lacrosse and the Virginia fraternity cases. They do in minutes what used to take weeks, with the added fuel of anonymity. “Sources report” blare out TV journalists. Bloggers comment on rumors with their own fake names, photos, and handles, virtue signaling to each their own greater outrage. Chain email comes from pressure groups rather than from named individuals.

    In all these hysterias and frenzies, caution and moderation become proof of complicity. Calls for quiet reflection and moments of calm to weigh evidence are seen as veritable confessions of guilt or aiding and abetting the crime. To demand respect for the spirit of due process is to offer proof of one’s own culpability. One day, actor Richard Dreyfuss is furious that Kevin Spacey allegedly groped his son right under his nose. The next, Richard Dreyfuss is outraged that he is accused of allegedly earlier doing something himself far worse to a similar young aspirant.

    Hypocrisy and irony become endemic: the chargers of Russian collusion are the original colluders. The loud protesters who take a knee themselves became the targets of silent fan protests. The statue smashers can put up statues worse than what they tore down. The men who swear they are feminists do so because they are misogynists. The accuser is blamed for accusing, or for staying silent so long, or for exaggerating the ordeal; the silent non-accuser is assumed to have advanced a career through willful acquiescence. Who can sort out the crime, the collusion, the conspiracy?

    History is full of such frenzies—the stasis on Corycra, the Spanish Inquisition, the Committee of Public Safety, or the strange career of Joe McCarthy. They all can start over some legitimate grievance and all can quickly turn manic. And as we play each fit out, expect the madness to come full circle as it always does, when the spell wears off and 51 percent of people finally revolt at the very thought of tearing down Washington’s statue, or lumping together a criminal rapist with a loudmouthed sexist of 20 years past, or envisioning a multimillionaire spoiled, has-been quarterback as the next Jackie Robinson—or treating a fake-news smear document as if it were the New Testament.

    Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].

    Source…

     
  • Jack 3:32 am on November 15, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: , , clinton legacy, , lloyd marcus, , , , , ,   

    Vicious Politics 

    Black Christian Conservative Republican Lloyd Marcus here. I call upon all my fellow Christians not to abandon our brother Roy Moore who is running for U.S. Senate Alabama. Right before the election, 40-year-old sexual misconduct allegations have come out against Judge Moore, which he has denied.

    Judge Moore is hated by Leftists and establishment Republicans because he is an outspoken, character-driven Christian conservative; a faithful courageous defender of our Constitution, principles and values which have made America great. Moore elected to the U.S. Senate would be extremely helpful to Trump draining the swamp and making America great again.

    Judge Moore’s unwavering commitment to biblical morals and support of Trump’s agenda makes Moore the last person fake news media, Hollywood, Democrats and RINO Republicans want to see in the U.S. Senate.

    Therefore, it is not surprising that Leftists and RINOs are clamoring for Moore to drop out of the race; claiming Moore is morally unfit to serve. These same people told us president Bill Clinton having an intern perform oral sex on him in the White House was none of our business. To defend Clinton, Leftists threw all men under the bus by claiming any man in a powerful position would say yes to sex with a starry-eyed young woman. Their narrative was particularly offensive to me because my dad and brother were men in powerful positions. Dad was the pastor of a large congregation and my brother was commissioner of a kid’s football league. Neither of them would mimic President Clinton’s adulterous philandering, sexual harassment, and sexual assaults.Leftists sold America their lie that president Clinton’s serial adultery was no big deal. Sexual immorality was the acceptable new normal for men in power (if they were democrats). Now, these same people who circled the wagons to protect Clinton are pounding on Moore’s political door with axes and pitchforks, demanding that he get out of the race over unfounded 40-year-old allegations.

    But what if the 40-year-old allegations against Judge Moore are true? Judge Moore became a Christian several years ago. His consistent behavior, standing up for religious liberty and freedom strongly suggest his conversion to Christianity was real. 2 Corinthians 5:17 says “If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature. Old things have passed away; behold all things have become new.” In other words, when Moore put his trust in Jesus and repented of his sinful life, Moore became a new man.

    Before his encounter with Christ, the Apostle Paul was a bad man who killed Christians. Forty years before God used Moses to lead his people out of Egypt, Moses murdered a man. The Bible says “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). After becoming new people via their new birth in Christ, God has used everyone from former prostitutes to murderers in extraordinary ways. So how on earth can any Christian join Leftists in deeming our brother in Christ, Roy Moore, morally unfit to serve today based on 40-year-old unfounded allegations?

    It is pretty obnoxious watching the same people (Leftists) who seek to normalize and legalize every conceivable sexual perversion trying to disqualify Moore on moral grounds. As Rush Limbaugh has stated on numerous occasions, Leftists view sexual misconduct as résumé enhancement for Democrat politicians.

    Check out the glaring hypocrisy. Leftists are calling for Moore’s political head on a platter. And yet, they gave the following Democrats, for the most part, a pass for their sexual misconduct: Anthony Weiner, Eliot Spitzer, David Wu, Kwame Kilpatrick, John Edwards, Bill Clinton, David Paterson, Antonio Villaraigosa, Marc Dann, Paul J. Morrison, Gary Condit, Tim Mahoney, Roosevelt Dobbins, Neil Goldschmidt, Jim McGreevey, Bob Wise, Paul E. Patton, Mel Reynolds, Brock Adams, Chuck Robb, Gavin Newsom, Sam Adams, and Barney Frank. Fake news media did not collectively declare that the sexual misconduct of these Democrats made them unfit to serve.

    That’s the case even though Barney Frank’s boyfriend ran a prostitution business from Frank’s home. Were there serious calls for Frank to resign? Nope.

    This attack on Moore’s morals (right before the election) is a dirty trick to get a rock solid, bold, brave, and courageous conservative warrior out of the arena. My fellow Christians, please do not fall for it.

    Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American

    Author: “Confessions of a Black Conservative: How the Left has shattered the dreams of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Black America.”

    Singer/Songwriter and Conservative Activist

    http://LloydMarcus.com

    Source…

     
  • Jack 3:31 am on November 15, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: clinton legacy, , , , , , , peter huessy,   

    Fake News 

    The New York Times appears convinced the United States has plans to hurl 4000 nuclear warheads at Russian cities in the event deterrence breaks down, a retaliatory threat they claim is far beyond what is needed to keep the peace. Instead, they call for a unilateral cut in our nuclear force to roughly 1000.

    For some reason, the Times did not get the memo some half-century ago that the United States deterrent policy does not target an adversary’s cities. Nor are the number of warheads in the American deployed nuclear arsenal anywhere near the 4000 claimed by the Times.

    They were reduced by half that number in 2002 under the Moscow Treaty, and to even lower by the 2010 New START Treaty.

    The Times, believing American nuclear deterrent policy is still based on burning down to the ground our adversary’s cities, calls for the country to keep no more than a few hundred warheads to incinerate either Russian or Chinese cities, and roughly no more than a total of 1100 warheads to raze the cities of an expansive list of our nuclear-armed enemies.

    The Times’s glaring error is its failure to grasp that since the late 1960’s, the United States deterrent policy with respect to the Soviet Union and now Russia has been one of retaliating against or otherwise holding at risk the military capabilities of our enemies, and moving completely away from relying upon the assured destruction of cities that had earlier been adopted as part of U.S. nuclear policy.

    Targeting civilian populations with nuclear weapons has long been held by America’s leaders to be both an immoral and ineffective deterrent policy. Deterrence requires holding at risk what tyrannical societies value most — and that is their military power, not their impoverished citizens.

    Despite these facts, the Times claims the alleged current American “stockpile” of 4000 warheads the U.S. now has is far too high and can safely be reduced unilaterally, as the U.S. supposedly has more than enough warheads to target the cities of all our adversaries. Here the Times is adopting the most radical position of the arms control community.

    In graphic displays of ostensibly U.S. surplus warheads, the Times calculates — absurdly — that the United States needs precisely 1103 warheads to fire at all our adversaries to maintain deterrence, which they define as killing 25% of our adversary’s populations.

    The Times does acknowledge that American nuclear weapons have already been significantly reduced since the height of the Cold War. The United States has, in fact, cut its deployed, strategic, nuclear, in-the-field weapons from around 13,000 in 1991, to 1550 warheads today, a 90% reduction.

    Ironically, at any one time, roughly 1000 warheads — not the 4000 the Times conjures up — might be on alert and be available for retaliation. There is no possible way we could launch 4000 warheads at Russia or any adversary.

    To get to 4000, after the initial warheads fall to their targets, and the delivery missiles burn up in the atmosphere while returning to earth, we would have to find hundreds of missiles we do not have, place them in our empty silos and submarine launch tubes, load up more warheads and launch them again.

    Can we do this? Of course not. So, what are the real facts of its deterrent capability?

    The U.S. deterrent policy currently holds at risk the critical military capabilities of our adversaries. U.S. national leaders — in this instance, President Barack Obama — determined in the 2010 nuclear posture review and the associated guidance to America’s nuclear commanders that this is what the U.S. needs for deterrence. The nuclear force the U.S. now has was determined to be necessary by the previous administration and previous Presidents. At this time, a new nuclear posture review is examining those requirements; the third such review in the past 15 years.

    Moreover, the number of warheads the U.S. has deployed — on station — in its nuclear deterrent, flow only from the President’s determination, not from some false notion that to deter adversaries, it is necessary to kill millions of people.

    Ironically, writers at the Times have not always thought 1000 weapons were sufficient to deter America’s adversaries or that any deployment number above that level was unnecessary. On May 2, 1982, they ran an column by Senator Gary Hart that chastised the Reagan administration for proposing major reductions in nuclear weapons, and argued that the defunct 1979 SALT II treaty between the United States and Soviet Union — withdrawn from the Senate by the Carter administration after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan — should nonetheless be agreed to as it would supposedly “slow Soviet acquisition of additional nuclear weapons.”

    As one nuclear expert has noted, the United States Senate Armed Services Committee, under the control of the Democratic majority, disagreed.

    It unanimously concluded in 1979 that SALT II was not in the United States’ “national security interests” — precisely because it would not slow the build-up in Soviet nuclear weapons.

    The chief criticism of the treaty, in fact, to which the Times seemed oblivious, was that SALT II would permit a destabilizing vast modernization and expansion of Soviet strategic forces, hardly the “arms control” slow-down the Times would claim was anticipated. The Times appeared to not be aware such growth was allowed, or perhaps the editors were taken in by the “arms control” propaganda of the treaty’s proponents.

    While it is true, for example, that the Soviets under SALT II had to dismantle many missiles, a point the Times emphasized, what was also true was that the remaining silos under the terms of the treaty became the homes of new, vastly more powerful missiles with a lot more warheads. Even if the Soviets adhered to the terms of the 1979 SALT II deal, the Soviets could double the number of their strategic warheads, from 5,000 in 1979 to 9,200 by 1986 and to 12,000 by 1990.

    Under the SALT framework, by the end of the Cold War, the Soviets could build more than 13,000 deployed strategic nuclear warheads, hardly characteristic of any “arms control” within the plain meaning of the term.

    Reagan, on the other hand, sought real arms control — reductions — and spoke about it as early as 1977. As president, he persisted in pushing a strategy of peace through strength, and building a strong nuclear deterrent. While simultaneously seeking major arms reductions, he modernized what was to be kept. He then added the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) in 1983, to further enhance our deterrent capability and undermine the Soviet push for first strike threats.

    While the SALT treaties in 1972 and 1979 were agreements to build-up both the Soviets’ and Americans’ nuclear weapons to the level both had already planned to reach, the START process was a revolutionary change to build-down — reducing while modernizing.

    But most importantly, while SALT led to dangerous instabilities with very large multiple warhead missiles dominating the Soviet force, START sought to channel modernization to vastly fewer warheads and more nuclear warheads based on submarines at sea, only single warhead missiles on land, and flexible bomber rules for the only recallable — air — portion of the U.S. Triad.

    Coupled with that was a major push to challenge the Soviets to eliminate all their SS-20 medium range INF nuclear armed missiles in Europe and Asia under a zero-zero option.

    Ironically, all these ideas were opposed by the then-Soviet inspired and popular “nuclear freeze” which, at the time, the New York Times embraced.

    What was the result of the Reagan revolution in strategic thinking and doctrine of peace through strength?

    Did it work? Yes, the U.S. won the Cold War because President Reagan combined military reductions while pushing for modernization, including SDI. The Soviets had no diplomatic answer to nuclear reductions and could not economically match U.S. modernization.

    Bertrand Russell once said that people “often defend most passionately those opinions for which they have the least factual basis”. The Times certainly does. It apparently believes there is a US deterrent policy of burning cities to the ground, but the policy does not exist.

    The Times supported treaties such as SALT I and II that increased warheads dramatically, but later complained such numbers were far in excessive of what was needed. Russia then labeled as unfair Reagan’s proposals to reduce warhead levels that the Times said were excessive.

    The United States nuclear arsenal is the smallest it has been since the early Eisenhower administration.

    Even at such low levels, the U.S. deterrent holds at risk those military assets most important to our adversaries, the destruction of which would cripple them if they attacked the United States first. That ability has been the essence of American nuclear deterrent policy for at least the past half century — and it has worked perfectly. Radically changing that successful formula, as the Times wants the U.S. to do, would be a reckless, dangerous mistake.

    Dr. Peter Huessy is President of GeoStrategic Analysis, a defense consulting firm he founded in 1981, as well as Director of Strategic Deterrent Studies at the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies. He was also for 20 years, the senior defense consultant at the National Defense University Foundation.

    Source…

     
  • Jack 2:49 am on November 14, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: , , clinton legacy, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,   

    Attempted Coup? 

    We keep hearing about how angry Trump voters are destroying the Republican Party, but last week’s Schumer-show demonstrated that the people running it would rather run it into the ground than give up their grip on power. The Smart Set managed to get slaughtered on election night – let’s not sugarcoat it, we got creamed. And the dim bulbs in Congress seem determined to somehow turn tax cuts into something Republican voters hate. The GOPe makes everything worse, like pumpkin spice.

    Oh, and then there’s Roy Freaking Moore, whose creepitude led to the inevitable lecture about conservative principles, which apparently now include accepting every accusation pushed by our media enemies at face value. We know the guy is guilty of being like Jerry Seinfeld, and he may be worse and actually criminal. If he is, Moore needs to drop and the Alabama legislature needs to redo the rules to get a viable Republican into the race. But we don’t know, and the voters have a right to wonder why the GOPe was so eager to embrace a shaky claim pushed by a media we have seen lie and lie again about Republicans to help their liberal masters. All this makes it hard to come to any conclusion but that the GOP establishment thinks that the only way to defeat the virus of conservatism is to set fire to the party and hope that a few elections from now their Boehner-based, crony trough-feeding paradigm will rise again from the ashes like a K Street phoenix. It’s as if they want to get wiped out in 2018, and that’s the one objective they actually seem capable of achieving.

    Gillespie’s loss was no shock – Virginia is a blue state no matter what the hope-springs-eternal crowd keeps saying. What was a shock is that the GOP failed to anticipate the down ticket Democrat turn-out tsunami. A Frisco zillionaire targeted marginal GOP districts, pumped in money and support and caught the GOP napping. A bunch of Republican delegates lost their seats, and not by that much – but by enough. Yet, none of the GOP brain trust saw this coming, and the enemy stole a march on us. Who is getting fired for this screw-up? If the answer is “Nobody,” we might as well pack it in next year.

    It’s never good to lose, but losing will teach you more important lessons than winning. We now know that not only are Dems motivated, but they’ll be playing – with money and data support – in every marginal race. We have a year to prepare – are we doing that? What’s our strategy? Who the hell is responsible for coordinating 2018 anyway?

    Is the GOPe planning on throwing the mid-term election to teach us uppity rubes a lesson?

    Crazy? Would you put it past them? According to some of the fanatic Never Trumpers – who overlap with much of the GOPe/Conservative Inc. crew – we have some sort of moral obligation to lose as penance for not adhering to their measured, sensible guidance. Make no mistake – some of them see a defeat in 2018 as the first step back to their former glory. Think of all the cruise cabins they can sell in 2019 to folks eager to hear from superstars like Vin Weber and Eric Cantor about the great stuff the GOP will do when it controls the House again!

    One obvious answer to the 2018 problem, assuming the GOPe even feels that the fact we are on track to lose our House and maybe Senate majorities is a problem, is for our legislators to do the things they promised to do and thereby make us not hate them so much. But the big problem is that in election after election they promised us what they would do if given the chance, and then, when we gave them the chance, they revealed that they didn’t actually want to do what they promised. They are discovering that blatantly lying to your base’s collective face is a risky strategic choice.

    The GOP congressjerks couldn’t manage to undo Obamacare, despite their unequivocal promises, and now they seem intent on passing some sort of tax reform that is worse than not passing any sort of tax reform. What is this insane “taxes on a postcard” fixation? What we care about is paying less – I want a fifty page return if it saves me money. You take away deductions and our tax bills go up – and this nonsense about lowering rates is not going to undo the damage to the kind of people who usually … wait for it… vote Republican. But hey, the corporate rate will drop. Let’s all chip in for that. I know I’m glad to lose key deductions so the big donors can keep more cash.

    Now, we could always lower everyone’s rates, and “pay for it” by…brace yourself…cutting spending. Except apparently cutting the budget is off the table. Leave it to the GOPe to decide that the winning Republican message for 2018 is “Tax and Spend.”

    But hey, who says Congress can’t deliver? They’ve already delivered a year of investigations into the Trump/Putin/Chet the Unicorn collusion conspiracy. I know investigating our president in line with a liberal election defeat excuse narrative was my second biggest GOP priority following the humiliation of Felonia von Pantsuit and her supporters in the conservative cruise industry.

    My first priority, and yours, was always to give amnesty and citizenship to millions of illegal aliens, and the GOP caucus is chomping at the bit to do that. Apparently Dreamers’ dreams of taking advantage of violating our laws and eventually become loyal Democrat voters are much more important than our own conservative voters’ dreams of their mandatory crummy health insurance rates not doubling.

    And then there is Roy Moore, an outsider who I would prefer was not the nominee but I am not an Alabamian and I don’t get a say. I don’t know whether he did something 40 years ago, nor do you, but was it a smart move by the GOPe to immediately jump on-board the tumbrel taking him to the guillotine and give up on a Senate seat based upon a mere accusation? We know the case against him – he may well have done it, and there may be more shoes to drop – but why might GOP voters view this ultra-convenient revelation with suspicion? Here are some reasons:

    • A critical Senate seat is at stake, and this ancient news only dropped after it became impossible to replace him.
    • Moore denies it.
    • It is a uniquely deadly charge that cannot be refuted (or proven) except by believing one of the alleged participants.
    • We’ve seen many false sex crimes accusations.
    • We’ve seen Fusion GPS paid by Never Trumpers and/or the Democrats manufacture a fake dossier to falsely accuse the President of sex weirdness.
    • The Washington Post is a rabidly partisan liberal paper and part of a mainstream media whose members have, in the era of Trump, decreed that they are no longer to be objective put instead advocate for their partisan agenda.
    • We have not heard directly from the woman. Yes, the WaPo article contains alleged quotes, but those quotes are processed through the paper (Raise your hand if you’ve ever been misquoted – yep, that’s everyone). Her claims have not been subject to cross-examination. That makes her WaPo statements hearsay, which is traditionally viewed skeptically if admitted at all.
    • The WaPo did not reveal that one of the (legal age) girls worked for Hillary. That seems like a potentially relevant fact, right?
    • The WaPo found this woman when no one else – either in Alabama’s media or among opposition researchers over decades of Moore’s political life – did, no doubt via the extensive web of contacts that WaPo maintains in rural Alabama. Doesn’t that seem…odd? What’s the real story about how this all came out?

    I don’t know if Moore is guilty – if he is, the hell with him and let’s replace him on the ballot a la Robert Torricelli – but I know that the facts around this claim should make any reasonable person want to know more before they judge. Except not among the GOPe. In 2017’s least surprising development, John McCain demanded Moore drop out simply because he was accused. Yet when the New York Times accused McCain – he says falsely – of an affair, well, the Blue Falcon didn’t drop out of anything. And Mitt Romney, who always reminds me of a talking weasel wearing a $5,000 suit, had to pipe up and do the same. This was the same Mitt who Harry Reid lied about regarding his taxes so effectively. You’d think they’d both be sensitive to the potential for left wing smears, but no. We have two Republicans who were both falsely accused demanding that we give up a Senate seat because of an accusation the accused says is false – an accusation made on the pages of one of our greatest enemies no less. Does that seem legit?

    So what are GOP voters supposed to think when they note how these paragons of virtue signaling have not been demanding the resignation of Democrat Senator Bob Menendez, who is in the midst of a federal corruption trial – a case where there are hints their pal The Distinguished Gentleman from New Jersey cavorted with underage hookers? And the Adults In The Room wonder why their voters have nothing but contempt for them.

    As for Moore, it is properly the people of Alabama who will pass judgment. My guess is the voters of Alabama will believe Moore and choose him over the guy who wants to kill babies. I suspect that part of the reason will be to tell the GOPe that Alabamians will decide for themselves who represents them.

    What a mess. The Republican Party seems to have no interest in addressing its electile dysfunction. The Democrats are preparing for battle; the Professional Republicans are sulking because their voters won’t obey. They seem not just unable but unwilling to pass the agenda they promised the base. And whenever there’s a narrative damaging to the party to be hopped on, despite reasonable grounds for skepticism, hop on they do. If the GOP establishment wanted to lose, what would it do differently?

    Source…

     
  • Jack 2:37 pm on November 13, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: , clinton legacy, , , , , , , , , ,   

    Agreed 

    Mr. Attorney General, it’s time to do your job.

    Why in 2016 did FBI Director James Comey call the Clinton Investigation a “matter,” not an investigation? After all, Mr. Comey wasn’t Director of the Federal Bureau of Matters.

    Why in 2016 did FBI Director Comey begin drafting an exoneration letter for Secretary Clinton, whom he called “grossly negligent” in an early draft of the letter, before completing the investigation? Before interviewing several witnesses? And before interviewing Secretary Clinton?

    Why in 2016 did James Comey and the Justice Department give Cheryl Mills, Secretary Clinton’s Chief of Staff, an immunity agreement for turning over her laptop computer? Typically, the Department would issue a subpoena or get a warrant and seize it. Why in this case did the FBI agree to destroy the laptop?

    Why in 2016—one day before the Benghazi report was released and five days before Secretary Clinton was interviewed by the FBI—did Attorney General Lynch meet with former President Clinton on the tarmac in Phoenix?

    Why in the days following the meeting, and when emailing with the public relations staff at the Justice Department, did Loretta Lynch use the pseudonym “Elizabeth Carlisle?” If your conversation with the former President was only about golf and grandchildren, then why not use your real name?

    Why was the decision on whether to charge Secretary Clinton made by FBI Director Comey and not the Attorney General?

    Why did James Comey publicize the Clinton Investigation?

    Why in 2016 did the FBI pay for the Russian Dossier? It’s been reported that in addition to the Clinton Campaign and the Democratic National Committee paying FusionGPS for the dossier, the FBI also “reimbursed” Christopher Steele, author of the dossier.

    Why was FusionGPS co-founder Glenn Simpson meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya both before and after her meeting with Donald Trump, Jr.?

    Why is the FBI so reluctant to tell Congress and the American people if the dossier was the basis for a FISA court order permitting the government to spy on Americans associated with President Trump’s campaign? If the dossier was a legitimate intelligence document relied on by the court, then why not just tell the country?

    Why on January 6, 2017 did James Comey brief President-Elect Trump on the dossier? Again, if the dossier was a legitimate intelligence document, then why wait two months after the election to inform the President-Elect?

    Why did the Obama Administration leak to CNN that Mr. Comey had briefed President-Elect Trump on the dossier? Several media outlets had the dossier prior to the briefing, yet no one would print it because most of the document could not be substantiated. In his Congressional testimony, Mr. Comey himself called the dossier “salacious and unverified.” As pointed out in The Federalist, did the fact that the FBI Director had briefed the President-Elect on the dossier give it the “legitimacy” the press needed to go ahead and print something they knew was not accurate?

    Why did the intelligence community in the final months of the Obama Administration unmask names at a record rate?

    Why, after Mr. Comey was fired on May 9, 2017, was it so critical for a Special Counsel be named to examine possible Trump/Russia collusion? So critical that James Comey leaked a government document about his conversations with President Trump through a friend to the New York Times.

    Why is the Special Counsel Robert Mueller? According to The Hill and Circa News, in 2009 and 2010, the FBI through an informant learned Russian companies seeking to do business in the United States were involved in kickbacks and bribes. Yet, FBI Director Robert Mueller did not inform Congress and did not inform the Committee of Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), the entity responsible for the decision on whether to approve the Uranium One deal.

    Why did Robert Mueller not inform CFIUS? And why did the Justice Department put a gag order on the informant?

    Finally, why won’t Attorney General Jeff Sessions—the person with the visibility and responsibility to answer these questions—do his job?

    On , twenty House Republican members of the Judiciary Committee sent a letter to the Attorney General calling for a Special Counsel to get answers to the above questions.

    On September 28, 2017, five House Republican members of the Judiciary committee met with the Attorney General and Justice Department staff to inquire about the July letter.

    The Justice Department’s response? Silence.

    It’s time for Jeff Sessions to name a Special Counsel and get answers for the American people. If not, he should step down.

    Source…

     
  • Jack 3:49 am on November 13, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: , , cla, clinton legacy, dave boyer, , dni, , , james clapper, , john brennan, , , , ,   

    Slamm! 

    President Trump said Saturday that he accepts Russian President Vladimir Putin’s denials about election meddling, and doesn’t want to press him further as he seeks Moscow’s help on global hot spots such as North Korea, Syria and Ukraine.

    Mr. Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One in Vietnam that he asked Mr. Putin again about Russia’s election interference during a private meeting on the sidelines of a summit.

    “Every time he sees me he says ‘I didn’t do that’ and I really believe that when he tells me that, he means it,” the president said. “I think he is very insulted by it, which is not a good thing for our country. He says that very strongly, he really seems to be insulted by it and he says he didn’t do it. You can only ask so many times. He said he absolutely did not meddle in our election.”

    The president suggested he puts more stock in Mr. Putin than in three former U.S. officials who stated Russia interfered in the election — former CIA Director John Brennan, fired FBI Director James B. Comey and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

    “They’re political hacks,” Mr. Trump said. “So you look at it, and then you have Brennan, you have Clapper and you have Comey. Comey’s proven now to be a liar and he’s proven to be a leaker. And you have President Putin very strongly, vehemently says he had nothing to do with that. Now, you are not going to get into an argument, you are going to start talking about Syria and the Ukraine.”

    Mr. Trump blamed the tensions with Russia on Democrats and Hillary Clinton, who as secretary of state had clumsily tried to “reset” relations with Russia by displaying a large button with “reset” spelled incorrectly in Russian.

    “She hit that reset button, it was a joke. But she tried and she failed,” the president said. “Sometimes you don’t have chemistry with someone you don’t. But [President] Obama did not have the right chemistry and Hilary was in way over her head. Russia could really help us and the Democrats wanted to have a good relationship with Russia but they couldn’t do it because they didn’t have the talent, they didn’t have the chemistry to do it, they didn’t have what it takes.”

    He said it’s a “shame” that Democrats tried to ruin U.S. relations with Moscow with allegations of election meddling — allegations which are supported by U.S. intelligence agencies.

    “That whole thing was set up by the Democrats,” Mr. Trump said. “Look at [Clinton campaign chairman John] Podesta, look at all the things that they have done with the phony dossier. Those are the big events.”

    He added, “There is a time when I think Putin and I president Putin and I would have a great relationship and that would be great for both countries. And it would take a lot of danger out of this world. It’s a dangerous time – this isn’t small stuff. This is a very dangerous time. Having a great relationship or even a good relationship with the president of Russia – Hillary tried it, she failed, nobody mentions it.”

    The Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee paid in 2016 for a dossier with information about Mr. Trump from Russian sources, including salacious claims about Mr. Trump’s travels to Russia.

    Mr. Trump said he doesn’t intend to pursue the election issue with Mr. Putin any longer because there are challenges around the world to solve with Russia’s help, such as the agreement he reached with Mr. Putin on Saturday to join forces in defeating the Islamic State in Syria, and on the nuclear threat posed by North Korea.

    “Look, I can’t stand there and argue with him, I would rather have him get out of Syria, I would rather get to work with him on the Ukraine rather than arguing about whether or not [Russia meddled in the election],” he said. “This is really an artificial barrier that’s put in front of us for solving problems with Russia. You have President Putin very strongly, vehemently says he has nothing to do with that. Now, you are not going to get into an argument, you are going to start talking about Syria and the Ukraine.”

    He said he has “a good feeling toward getting things done” with Mr. Putin.

    “If we had a relationship with Russia, that would be a good thing,” he said. “In fact it would be a great thing, not a bad thing, because he could really help us on North Korea. We have a big problem with North Korea and China is helping us. And because of the lack of the relationship that we have with Russia, because of this artificial thing that’s happening with this Democratic-inspired thing. We could really be helped a lot with Russia having to do with North Korea. You know you are talking about millions and millions of lives. This isn’t baby stuff, this is the real deal. And if Russia helped us in addition to China, that problem would go away a lot faster.”

    He said China is cooperating with the U.S. by cutting off oil supplies to North Korea and reducing other trade.

    “But Russia on the other hand may be making up the difference,” he said.

    Source…

    See Also:

    (1) Former intel chiefs Brennan, Clapper unload on President Trump (Ed: This pair look in the photo like a pair of lifers to me.)

    (2) Turns out Trump didn’t ruin America’s economy

    (3) World ‘transfixed’: Each Trump tweet gets an average 98,000 likes says new study

    (4) Donald Trump Signals Concern Over CNN and AT&T Merger

    (5) Report: Bodyguard Says Trump Rejected Offer of Russian Women

    (6) WATCH — Breitbart’s Kassam Tells Kansas Conservatives: ‘Trump’s Instincts Are Right, He Must Proscribe Muslim Brotherhood Now’

    (7) Paul Ryan Rebukes 13 GOP Reps Who Urge No-Strings Amnesty Giveaway

     
  • Jack 3:48 am on November 13, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: , , clinton legacy, , , , , , , , , , , world media,   

    Media Frenzy 

    Roy Moore...

    Roy Moore in the stocks.

    The News can kill you. The News of the day is now a weapon as deadly as any other.

    “Who, What, Where, When and Why” the 5-Ws the News was weaned on are now: “TAKE HIM (HER) DOWN!”

    Does “pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it“, sound familiar to you?

    It’s Rule Number 12 in Lucifer-loving Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.

    It was Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton who most recently put Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals into play, and we all know that the Establishment plays forever. Rule 12 further advises followers to “cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.”

    It can easily be added that the far left already owned the institutions anyway.

    Irrefutable proof of how the powers that be own, manufacture and weaponize the news can be found in just one sentence on senatorial candidate Roy Moore’s Wikipedia bio:

    “According to Vox, if Moore is elected, he is likely to be the most far-right Senator, “far afield from even the most conservative Republican currently in the Senate”.

    But the mainstream media wants you to believe Moore’s going down because of his alleged indiscreet sexual misconduct with teens when he was a 30-year-old, single Assistant District Attorney.

    It’s not that Moore was a sexual predator in his callow youth, it’s not even that one of his accusers supposedly works as a housekeeper at the Obama’s new D.C. house, or even that another accuser supposedly worked the Hillary Clinton campaign as a sign language interpreter.

    They are the juicy tidbits that hide the real reason the left is targeting Moore and keeping the masses distracted until after December 12:“If elected, he is likely to be the most far-right Senator,far afield from even the most conservative Republican currently in the Senate”.

    The MSM manipulate the masses into thinking what the MSM want them to think: If you Google a person’s name, their Wikipedia bio comes up first. If you Google for a news item, CNN comes up first!

    Former judge, Roy Moore is the latest victim of the Alinsky freeze , polarize and personalize it target , but it was only made to look like it happened overnight.

    But Moore became the far left’s Enemy Numero Uno back in the days when he was a judge: the judge who dared to have nailed on his courtroom wall, a plaque imprinted with God’s Ten Commandments.

    Forced to take the plaque down by a posse of leftists and atheist fellow travellers back in 2003, he’s been a moving target with a Giant X on his back ever since.

    Add to the irony of this controversy the immortal words of Jesus who said “If you love me, keep my commandments” and that Commandment No. Nine reads: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor”.

    When truth is barred from argument and debate, its defenders are left dead in the water.

    The truth didn’t matter anymore by the time Obama came into power. Standbys in place for centuries like the hand-on-the-bible oath sworn by all those testifying in a court of law to “ tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” were now passé because some recite the oath, but go on to lie in testimony anyway.

    Telling the truth means nothing to politicians who got to where they did by lieilyingng to the people they were elected to serve.

    There’s a curious timeline on how Moore became the News du jour for anyone still pondering “what happened”?
    Continued below…
    The News Can Kill You is the debut of ‘Character Assassination by Allegation’

    Movie mogul Harvey Weinstein, still holding saturation status in the mainstream media, was outed by mainly female Hollywood sexual harassment victims 20 years on, within a week of Stephen Paddock killing 59, and injuring many others in Las Vegas on October 1st.

    This week, Roy Moore fell victim to allegations of being a child molester—some 40 years on.

    Was Hollywood setting the scene? Did 20 years later, pave the way for the credibility of 40 years later?

    The News Can Kill You is the debut of ‘Character Assassination by Allegation’. And it certainly won’t stop with Roy Moore.

    It seems that with help from Hollywood, atheists and the mainstream media, social justice warriors and assorted RINOs, the progressive left is on a kill-off-the-enemy roll.

    By suppressing it to keep it hidden, social media will move to kill off this story. But that couldn’t stop me from writing it.

    Source…

    See Also:

    (1) Roy Moore vs. the Swamp

     
  • Jack 3:47 am on November 13, 2017 Permalink |
    Tags: , , , clinton legacy, , , , , , , texas church massacre,   

    Media Silence 

    Media outlets across the country are apparently having difficulty counting. They can’t seem to get the number of victims right in last week’s horrific Texas church massacre. While many correctly reported that 26 people were killed during Devin Patrick Kelley’s maniacal rampage, many others went to great pains to avoid reporting that an unborn child died at First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, last Sunday. Or, if they did report the baby’s death, they reported it as a footnote, careful to separate the unborn child from other victims.

    Take, for instance, the Chicago Tribune, which wrote, “Kelley shot and killed 25 people at the church. Authorities have put the official toll at 26, because one of the victims was pregnant.” The newspaper didn’t want to get caught recognizing the humanity of the unborn baby, so they deferred to “authorities.” There wasn’t a deceased baby, there was a pregnant victim, according to the Tribune.

    CNN wrote that “the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs will reopen its sanctuary as a memorial on Sunday, one week after a gunman killed 25 people and an unborn child.” In other words, 25 real people and one blob of tissue.

    At USA Today, they didn’t even try to cloak their hostility toward unborn babies in clever wording. “The memorial ceremony was a block away from the First Baptist Church, which is slated for demolition after the massacre during Sunday services Nov. 5 that killed 25 people including a pregnant woman and wounded 20,” an article declared.

    The same with the New York Daily News, where they reported: “Michael Kelley, who lives just 35 miles away from Sutherland Springs, where his son killed 25 people and an unborn child at the First Baptist Church, told ABC, ‘We are grieving, our family is grieving.'” And an unborn child, as if it’s a creature belonging to another species.

    Time opted to go with word gymnastics: “Kelley shot and killed 25 people at the church. Authorities have put the official toll at 26, because one of the victims was pregnant.” Which is it, 25 people or 26? Time wouldn’t dare recognize the humanity of the slain child, though they dutifully reported what “authorities” said.

    CBS News did the same thing: “The victims included eight males and 17 females ranging in age from 1 to 77. Authorities said the 26 dead also included the unborn baby of a woman who was killed.” So 25 victims plus one unborn baby. See the subtle subterfuge?

    That “plus one” baby had a name: “Carlin Brite ‘Billy Bob’ Holcombe.” John Holcombe, who was shot in the leg but survived the shooting alongside two of his children, wrote on Facebook that the name “includes [his wife] Crystal’s pick for a girl, a boy and the nickname the kids gave the baby.” Holcombe lost a total of eight family members in the shooting.

    “Crystal was very thoughtful when coming up with these names. Carlin means small champion. ‘Billy Bob’ is the nickname the kids gave the baby,” he wrote.

    John Ellis noted earlier this week at PJM that a Texas law enacted in 2003 recognizes the humanity of unborn children, affording them all the protections of the criminal code at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth. (The law does not apply to murders committed during a legal abortion, however.)

    Why can’t these media outlets simply say that 26 people — human beings — were killed in the attack? The answer should be obvious to anyone who’s been paying attention to the culture wars for the last 40 years. They can’t say it because they’re so firmly tethered to their lie — that the unborn child in his mother’s womb has no personhood and no rights. It’s merely a blob of cells that can be destroyed at will. Even in a time of great national tragedy, they must lead the way in defending — and even advancing— the right of a woman to choose to kill her unborn baby. To recognize that tiny baby in Texas as a victim would let to the mask drop and reveal the 40-year-long prenatal holocaust they’ve aided and abetted. As PJM’s Michael Walsh is wont to say, “The never stop, they never sleep, they never quit.”

    As Ellis explained, “Pro-abortionists get it. They will fight tooth and nail to prevent our legal system from acknowledging the personhood of babies still living in their mother’s womb. They have to wage that war in the legal realm because the fight would be over before it even started if the battle took place in our neighborhoods.”

    They fight it only in the legal realm, but also in the media and across all segments of our culture, including K-12 and higher education. They must continue to push the lie that what’s contained in a mother’s womb is not a human being, despite all evidence to the contrary. The tragedy in Texas exposes their deception — and their desperation — as more and more Americans understand that abortion is the intentional killing of a human being made in the image of God.

    Source…

     
c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel