Conservative Refocus Rebuttals
By Barry Secrest
I'm always fascinated over how, exactly, the Wall Street Journal, of all news organizations, actually hired a raving, semi-Liberal, lunatic with a keyboard and made her their preeminent staff-opinion-writer...I mean, how does that happen, exactly?
Has Noonan been, somehow, stricken by the Wuhan Virus and is even now suffering from it's [recently] documented psychological side-effects? Has everyone else in her party ( It's actually the Dems) gotten it too?
You know, hanging out in the urban areas, especially in the likes of New York, can certainly do that to you, and a whole lot more, apparently.
"Where did Donald Trump come from?" She initially asks and the question, while, easy enough for most Americans to decipher, tends to summarily incapacitate most writers of Noonan's unimponderable ilk.
"Where is the GOP going? Should the whole thing be burned down?"
Navel-Gazing for Dummies
Well, let me answer that, Peggy (as she undertakes a prolonged instance of extreme navel-gazing) --but first things first, would Peggy Care to explain where in-the-hell the riot-embracing, socialist-craving, Trump-hating, defund-the-police-Democrat Party is headed, if anywhere?
Maybe Nancy is so plugged-in to the current burn-all-federal-buildings-down-Democrats, that she simply quaffs everything over into the burn/don't burn category.
"A lot had to go wrong before we got a President Trump. This fact, once broadly acknowledged, has gotten lost, as if a lot of people want it forgotten."
No, Peggy...Regarding Trump, it was never a credible question being asked by the Democrat media, in fact, and most of the American people obviously know this...
However, what's mesmerizing is the fact that Peggy seems to believe that whatever she manages to type-out on her keyboard, simply becomes "So"--like that movie with Jim Cary in it--the one where God grants him the power to handle all things and Carey's character manages to screw it all up beyond recognition.
Has Peggy watched that movie? Maybe she should...
"Mr. Trump’s election came from two unwon wars, which constituted a historic foreign-policy catastrophe, and the Great Recession, which those in power, distracted by their mighty missions, didn’t see coming until it arrived with all its wreckage. He came from the decadeslong refusal of both parties’ leadership to respect and respond to Americans’ anxieties, from left and right, about illegal immigration. He came from bad policy and bad stands on crucial issues."
Okay, so, what exactly, has this got to do with Republicans, or more specifically, Conservatives? When Peggy scribes the (2) big unwon wars, was she referring to Obama's war against Libya, (which was Obama and Hillary's) or, was she referring to Obama's anemic war movements in both Pakistan and Afghanistan?
Or, maybe she's referring to G.W. Bush's war in Iraq, which America did eventually win, but, hell! I'm not certain which big wars that she means, exactly, simply because there've been so many, that, by the way, Peggy aided in creating.
But, how, exactly, is that Trump's or the American people's fault?
America's biggest war, WW2, was presided over by a Democrat, and the Korean war was also presided over by a Democrat.
The Vietnam war was presided over by Eisenhour who was a Republican, and it was against Communist Aggression, as was the Korean war, but would the Democrats go to war against any Communist nation, now, or would they simply join-up?
That, as they say, is the question.
The Dems now all but own, the Black Lives Matter movement, which is nothing but systemic Marxism, as embraced by most sports teams, and pretty much anyone without even a tittle of common sense, however, that seems to be all the rage, these days.
"He came from the growing realization of on-the-ground Americans that neither party seemed to feel any particular affiliation with or loyalty to them, that both considered them lumpen bases to be managed and manipulated.
He came from the great and increasing social and cultural distance between the movers and talkers of the national GOP, its strategists, operatives, thinkers, pundits, and party professionals, and the party’s base.
He came from algorithms that deliberately excite, divide and addict, and from lawmakers who came to see that all they had to do to endure was talk, not legislate, because legislating involves compromise and, in an era grown polar and primitive, compromise is for quislings."
Nihilism for Beginners
Well, Okay, but Still....why would we burn the Republican party down, when it was obviously the Republicans that managed to get Trump into the office (thank the most wonderful God in heaven) and quite frankly, what's the woman's point?
"He came from a spirit of frustration among a sizable segment of the electorate that, in time, became something like a spirit of nihilism. It will be a long time repairing that, and no one is sure how to. "
What? Has Peggy decided that she must re-imagine the word, "nihilism" or something?
Nihilism is defined as "the rejection of all moral and religious principles in the belief that life is meaningless"
Now, which party represents this particular definition "to a Tee."
It ain't the Republicans.
The Democrat party base has most recently been burning Bibles in Portland, and burning churches, even as most of the blue-state governors have been closing churches down, at every possible moment.
Did Peggy somehow mix-up her title? Did she mean "Burn the Democrat Party Down" and if so, why would we do that when they're doing it to themselves quite splendidly?
"And here, in that perfect storm, was Mr. Trump’s simple, momentary genius. He declared for president as a branding exercise and went out and said applause lines, and when the crowd cheered, he decided “This is my program,” and when it didn’t cheer, he thought, “Huh, that is not my program.” Some of it was from his gut, but most of it was that casual. After the election, a former high official told me he observed it all from the side of the stage. This week the official said that after a rally, on the plane home, all Mr. Trump and Jared Kushner would talk about was the reaction. “Did you see how they responded to that?”
Now, what the heck is Peggy even talking about, at this point? Once we've decided that she simply has to be referring to Democrats, which is in fact, is the party of "nihilism" or "anti-religion" --how does she then toss her entire premise, into the "Orange Man bad," category, along with his party?
"The base, with its cheers, said they weren’t for cutting entitlement benefits. They were still suffering from the effects of 2008, and other things. They weren’t for open borders or for more foreign fighting. They were for the guy who said he hated the elites as much as they did."
The Elites...and Who They Are
Well, there she got something right, I mean, we do hate the so-called elites not unlike Peggy, along with their constant stream of extensive nonsense, but, not exactly for all the reasons pretended by the duplicitous Left.
The nexus for this pernicious brand of dislike flows from the coiffures of what we interpret as an incredible pretense. I mean, are there actually people who wake up thinking how elite they truly are?
Or, more likely, are there not actual people who wake up and go about doing the incredible things that they do, without even thinking about being a so-called elite.
That is the thing, you see.
In order to truly be an Elite, one cannot even approach thinking about the esoteric qualities of elitism, even in passing. In my opinion (which I have many) this instance, indeed, is the true and real quality concerning being an actual elite, and these folks who pretend that they are, don't actually even come close, on their best day.
Or, does their diddling with some poor kidnapped, sex-trafficked youngsters, uber- qualify them, in their very small minds, if you can even call it that?
The Wuhan Chinese Virus
"The past four years have produced a different kind of disaster, one often described in this space. The past six months Mr. Trump came up against his own perfect storm, one he could neither exploit nor talk his way past: a pandemic, an economic contraction that will likely produce a lengthy recession, and prolonged, sometimes violent national street protests. If the polls can be trusted, he is on the verge of losing the presidency."
Ah, so here, we get down to the meat of things.
The Wuhan virus is Trump's fault. Right.
Now, swish that around in your mind for a moment, and gargle it convincingly before expectorating your results, which should proceed right down the drain, along with this spectacularly ghastly idea.
It's not Trump's virus, It's China's.
We know this from the reams of incontrovertible data regarding what China did and when China did it, and even then, how they made the very conscious decision to fly the virus out to everywhere, except, anywhere in China.
They obviously, must think that the world is as stupid as the 1.392 million [non-communist party] villagers that they've cuckolded.
So, will America blame the virus on Trump, or will the people ascribe the virus to its mendacious masters in China? I believe we're starting to see the answer on this, and that answer is not exactly in Noonan's favor.
"Now various of his foes, in or formerly of his party, want to burn the whole thing down—level the party, salt the earth where it stood, remove Republican senators, replace them with Democrats."
Okay, so who, in the Republican party, other than the ridiculously supercilious anti-Trumpers, a people we simply cannot take seriously (not unlike Peggy.... again) desires to burn the party down?
Is it certain conspicuous members, of whom she dares not mention, or, is it merely Peggy's woefully active imagination, or, probably more accurately, is it some second-rate establishment Republican who failed to secure a job in the Trump Administration and is burning mad about the whole damned thing?
Yes, in Peggy's history as a Bilderberger Establishment Republican, it was probably some pissed-off idiot she had coffee and a Danish with, last week, who now, somehow, represents a substantial proportion (of Peggy's imagination) and of the whole blasted Republican Party, that doesn't really exist.
Yeah, that's just how she rolls...."one"...can, in her mind, represent an entire movement that doesn't really exist.But she can write about it and make it seem as so.
"This strikes me as another form of nihilism. It’s bloody-minded and not fully responsible for three reasons."
Well, once again, nihilism is a thing of the Democrats, as we've already ascertained, based upon the reams of evidence that they keep producing, ad nauseum.
"First, it’s true that the two-party system is a mess and great daily frustration. But in the end, together and in spite of themselves, both parties still function as a force for unity in that when an election comes, whatever your disparate stands, you have to choose whether you align more with Party A or Party B. This encourages coalitions and compromise. It won’t work if there are four parties or six; things will splinter, the system buckle. The Democratic Party needs the Republican Party, needs it to restrain its excesses and repair what it does that proves injurious. The Republicans need the Democrats, too, for the same reasons."
Um...NO...we really don't need the Democrats anymore, rest assured, Peggy, any more than we need a few more enemies like China, and the simple fact is, the two-party system has been and always will be a mess, most especially when the Dems keep voting in members like Ilhan Omar and AOC, for Heaven's sake.
That, in fact, is the overall problem.
The Dems are no longer interested in putting in statesmen (or women). In fact, they went radical quite some time ago, and the radicals have now over-taken the entire party, along with its new Communist stylings.
We need a few more democrats like we need a few more holes in the head.
"Second, if the Republicans lose the presidency, the House and the Senate in November, the rising progressives of the Democratic Party will be emboldened and present a bill for collection. They’ll push hard for what they want. This will create a runaway train that will encourage bad policy that will damage the nation. Republicans and conservatives used to worry about that kind of thing."
Well, it's according to what the meaning of "If," is...now isn't it Peggy?
But, the chances of America losing its incumbent President in a re-election, quite frankly, is starkly minimal, indeed, based upon the historical facts--but most especially-- when you have a usurper who can't even figure out where he's at, most of the time.
"Third, Donald Trump is burning himself down. Has no one noticed?"
Nope. NOT AT ALL, in fact, QUITE THE OPPOSITE.
You see, Peggy, In order to subscribe to the misbeliefs that you obviously subscribe to, one would, first, have to totally ignore the NY Times, and Washington Post....and even the sections providing the more useful facilitation of wrapping fish.
In fact, I see the dems and Biden burning themselves down, completely, on most days, even to the point of, predictably, absolving Biden of the horrid mess that is a debate ( for Him).
And I see the democrat media reeling with up to, what is it? 10,000 layoffs, as was most recently reported.
Peggy, you do have at least some concept regarding what THAT will ultimately do, to your shadow-Globalist party?
"When the Trump experience is over, the Republican Party will have to be rebuilt. It will have to begin with tens of millions of voters who previously supported Mr. Trump. It will have to decide where it stands, its reason for being. It won’t be enough to repeat old mantras or formulations from 1970 to 2000. It’s 2020. We’re a different country."
Indeed, we are a different country, as we always will be, however, people like you, Peggy, are so horribly lop-sided that you see only what you wish to see, and not what actually is taking place.
The main point is that the Democrats, which, by the way, I find very strange, you didn't even mention them in any meaningful sense, have completely played-out their efforts to eject Trump from his singular job of over fulfilling his campaign promises, for the last (4 ) years. While Trump was continually, working his Asimov off, the Dems have done exactly what they always do, skulking about and scheming-up, any old way to eject Trump from his party....that simply will not work.While totally ignoring the joke that is Biden.
....and replace him with Pence?
I really don't think they know what they're doing...
I also see a country that is even now gearing up to react to the Marxist BLM/ Antifa-Fascist movement.
I see Newton's 3rd law just about ready to be fully engaged and in the most meaningful way,
" To every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction"
"The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object."
I see Trump pushing ahead with a favorably rating amongst Republicans approaching the highest ever seen, at approximately 96%. I see Trump's poll-standings neatly mirroring his exact standings at the time of the last election, with Democrat samplings among the polls, far over-exceeding the Republican samplings, just exactly as it was in 2016.
And I see Biden, as diagnosed before it's all over with, as a victim of "Sundowners' Syndrome"
In essence, I see what is actually happening
"A lot is going to have to be rethought. Simple human persuasion will be key."
With the Democrats, again, this so terribly true.
"Rebuilding doesn’t start with fires, purges and lists of those you want ejected from the party."
Actually, the rebuilding continues, just as it was incepted back in 2010, with Conservatives over-taking the remaining establishment ( read Globalist) Republicans, and the Nationalists taking back over.
I see the last major strain of the Globalists, and their minions, and we will soon eradicate their like, at least on our side of the aisle.
"Many if not most of those calling for burning the whole thing down are labeled “Never Trump,” and a lot of them are characterologically quick to point the finger of blame. They’re aiming at Trump supporters in Congress. Some of those lawmakers have abandoned long-held principles to show obeisance to the president and his supporters. Some, as you know if you watched the supposed grilling of tech titans this week, are just idiots."
Oh, and when they did the entire way with Obama, including the entire blasted media.... what was that called? "Nothing to see here? "
Yeah, we've watched that movie more times than we've seen Star Wars.
"But Never Trumpers never seem to judge themselves. Many of them, when they were profiting through past identities as Republicans or conservatives, supported or gave strategic cover to the wars that were such a calamity, and attacked those who dissented. Many showed no respect to those anxious about illegal immigration and privately, sometimes publicly, denounced them as bigots. Never Trumpers eloquently decry the vulgarization of politics and say the presidency is lowered by a man like Mr. Trump, and it is. But they invented Sarah Palin and unrelentingly attacked her critics. They often did it in the name of party loyalty."
"Some Never Trumpers helped create the conditions that created President Trump. What would be helpful from them now is not pyromaniac fantasies but constructive modesty, even humility."
Yeah, Peggy...so...what happened to you? No Really?
"The party’s national leaders and strategists don’t have a lot to be proud of in the past few decades. The future of the party will probably bubble up from the states."
" Both parties have weaknesses. Liberals enjoy claiming progress that can somehow never quite be quantified. Conservatives like the theme of betrayal."
It will be unhelpful for Republicans, and bad for the country, if that’s the background music of the party the next 10 years.
..and, again, what of the current Democrats, Peggy? And, why do you systemically ignore all of their non-sense?
We do see what is actually happening...and it bears no resemblance to your theatrical parade of words assembled together to essentially represent absolutely nothing.
"Seinfeld" did it so much better...alas.
By Barry Secrest
Should we even be asking the question? Even with all the violence currently out here?
News Organizations down the line, which consistently proffer-up, often wild opinions on new events, have acted somewhat fecklessly (and suddenly) with regard to the black individual who slaughtered (2) men and beat at least one woman, severely, with nothing other than a baseball bat.
The question of motive, in light of all the Black Lives Matter and Antifa non-sense, which is percolating all over the US, should be included. And yet, in story after story covering this news event, it is not.
Now, Isn’t that unusual?
Here are just a few of the stories we observed:
According to Orlando.com, “Two men were beaten to death and a woman was seriously injured late Thursday during an attack at a home in a gated Windermere community while a 10-year-old boy called authorities while hiding in a bathroom, police said.”
Well, perhaps it was the Tea Party? I mean, the media never lacked in running stories designed to denigrate anyone not of the left, during the formative years of the Tea Party, exactly 10-years ago.
So, what’s happening here?
Anyway, back to Orlando.com:
“The double homicide happened at a home in the 2900 block of Sunbittern Court in the Lake Crescent Reserve community, which is just south of Lake Crescent and north of Park Avenue and Lake Butler Boulevard.
Windermere police stated that Emanuel Hopkins pushed the community’s gate open with his car then tried to steal a car from the home when he was confronted by the homeowners, John and Lisa Savey.
What? was he dissatisfied with his current ride, so much so, that he killed the owners of the car? Or, was that mere happenstance associated with the attack?"
“We do know that in a video that we saw right here from the front entrance here that he came down the road on a high rate of speed turned into this entrance and pushed the gate open turned his lights off,” Chief David Ogden told News 6.”
So, will we ever know of the actual motive which could lead to an actual hate-crime charge? Or, is that simply out of the question due to the current political agenda being staged by the Dem media?
Maybe it had nothing to do with race, however, then you must ask yourself the question regarding why this criminal had to slam his car into the gate of a gated community and then managed to finally get inside a secure home to slaughter two men with a baseball bat, all for the need of a vehicle?
According to Windermere police chief David Ogden, ““I don’t believe the family was targeted,” Ogden said. “I believe that he was just trying to look for another vehicle to steal because he had seen some police officers sometimes before looking at him.”
Hmm…Quite strange, indeed, and why a gated community? Weren’t there plenty of residential areas easier to get into? but, at least there’s one actual printed opinion, which, strangely enough, seeks to direct attention away from the most plausible current source, of the attacks.]]>
The New American
Written by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.
At a meeting of the Pontifical Academy held recently, Pope Francis advocated a policy of decreased national sovereignty and increased global unity. A shift toward globalism is necessary, he said, in order to fight climate change and other worldwide “threats.”
"When a supranational common good is clearly identified, it is necessary to have a special authority legally and concordantly constituted capable of facilitating its implementation. We think of the great contemporary challenges of climate change, new forms of slavery and peace,” his holiness told those gathered to discuss “Nation, State, and Nation-State,” the conference theme.
Pope Francis meeting members of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences on May 2, 2019. (ANSA)
Pope Francis put a pretty fine point on his message, claiming that planetary problems are exacerbated by “an excessive demand for sovereignty on the part of States.”
He moved on to immigration, declaring that nationalism is too easily twisted into a doctrine repugnant to the welcoming of immigrants. “The Church observes with concern the reemergence, in many parts of the world, of currents that are aggressive towards foreigners, especially immigrants, as well as a growing nationalism that neglects the common good,” Pope Francis said.
Our only hope for planetary peace and progress is to make room for “international organizations” to develop into governing bodies, supplanting the “state interests” with the will of the United Nations, he stated.
Speaking of the United Nations, Pope Francis announced his ardent support for the sine qua non of all globalists: “sustainable development.”
He declared that if we hope to save the planet we must accept that we are one people and unite to create "a space for dialogue and meeting for all countries in a spirit of mutual respect," and must stop what "hinders the attainment of the sustainable development goals approved unanimously by the United Nations."
And the hits just keep on coming.
Pope Francis warned attendees that sovereign nations attempting to govern themselves will find they are unable to protect their populations from the myriad menaces abroad in the world. "The nation-state is no longer able to procure the common good of its populations alone. The common good has become global and nations must associate for their own benefit," Francis said.
For our own benefit? Who benefits from the global government? Ask yourself this question: In the nearly 75 years of the United Nations' existence, have wars ceased? Has the number of wars decreased? Are the signatories to the UN Charter moved toward greater prosperity or toward deeper economic depression?
Of course, there is no need to argue whether or not the United Nations has been a blessing to the nations of the Earth. It has undoubtedly been the source of bloodshed, violence, oppression, and Marxism.
His Holiness suggested that governments around the globe should "strengthen their cooperation by connecting certain functions and services to intergovernmental institutions that manage their common interests."
The Senate Finance Committee is probing meetings reportedly held in 2015 between two of former President Barack Obama’s top economic officials and Maria Butina, a Russian national who later pleaded guilty to conspiring to covertly influence U.S. foreign policy, the panel said Friday.
Committee leadership published letters sent to the current heads of the U.S. Treasury Department and Federal Reserve raising concerns over reports that Ms. Butina, a 30-year-old gun-rights activist, met with officials from the agencies during the Obama administration.
“The Senate Finance Committee has a constitutional responsibility to engage in vigilant oversight of entities and government agencies within its jurisdiction,” wrote Senators Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, and Ron Wyden, Oregon Democrat, the committee’s chairman, and ranking member, respectively. “A critical issue facing the Committee and the country is the extent to which the Russian government engaged in efforts designed to undermine our political system and governmental policy through obfuscation and manipulation.”
Reuters first reported last year that Ms. Butina and Alexander Torshin, a former top official for the Russian Central Bank, met in 2015 with Stanley Fischer, then-Federal Reserve vice chairman, and Nathan Sheets, then-Treasury undersecretary for international affairs, to discuss “U.S.-Russian economic relations during Democratic former President Barack Obama’s administration.”
Butina (Pictured on right)
Mr. Torshin was sanctioned by the Treasury Department in April 2018, and Butina was arrested three months later and charged with acting as an unregistered agent of the foreign government. She subsequently pleaded guilty to a related count of conspiracy and is awaiting sentencing.
“Given what is now known about them from public court filings, it is concerning that Ms. Butina and Mr. Torshin were able to gain access to high-level administration officials to reportedly discuss U.S. Russian economic relations,” Mr. Grassley and Mr. Wyden wrote in letters seeking details about the meetings.
“Furthermore, it is imperative to understand the substance and extent to which Ms. Butina and Mr. Torshin lobbied other administration officials in an effort to change U.S. policy toward Russia or other countries and whether decisions were made as a result of these meetings,” the senators wrote.
The letters were sent Thursday to Steven Mnuchin, the secretary of the Treasury, and Jerome Powell, the chairman of the Federal Reserve. Messages seeking comment from both agencies were not immediately answered over the weekend.
A third letter was sent to Dimitri K. Simes, the president and CEO of the Center for the National Interest, a nonprofit group Reuters credited with organizing the meetings. A representative for the center did not immediately respond to a similar inquiry.
Butina attempted to infiltrate groups including the National Rifle Association as part of a secret effort to “establish unofficial lines of communications” between D.C. and Moscow, according to prosecutors. She pleaded guilty to conspiring to act as an unregistered foreign agent but has denied acting as a spy for the Russian government.
Moscow leaders have condemned the case and labeled Butina a “political prisoner.”
A former politician, Mr. Torshin, 65, served as deputy governor of the Central Bank of Russia from 2015 through 2018. Federal prosecutors allege he effectively served as Butina’s handler prior to her arrest.
A stench has been emanating from the J. Edgar Hoover Building (FBI headquarters) for over two years. It landed Saturday on the front page of the New York Times in an article citing “former law enforcement officials” claiming they had to deal with “explosive implications” that President Donald Trump was “knowingly” or “unwittingly” working for Russia. Thus, the story goes, there was a basis to begin the Russia collusion investigation.
In fact, “The Gray Lady” was covering the derrieres of the Obama administration officials involved in the cabal to frame Trump, who now fear an imminent Special Counsel finding that during the 2016 campaign there was no collusion between Trump and the Russians. The article is intended to convey the following message: Even though there was no evidence to support the allegations, those making the decision to investigate Trump did so in good faith.
No, they did not. The rotting of the FBI hierarchy began when then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and then-agent Peter Strzok, enabled by former Director James Comey and the Obama-era Justice Department, utilized an “unsubstantiated” dossier created by former British spy, Christopher Steele, and financed by the Clinton campaign, to request a FISA warrant to wiretap Trump campaign advisor Carter Page. Yet, the New York Times described the dossier as a “factor fuel[ing]” the “FBI’s concerns.”
GREGG JARRETT: AN FBI THAT IS CORRUPT AND DISHONEST -- LATEST REPORTS OFFER ONLY MORE PROOF
We have been involved in the criminal justice process for decades. Never have we seen a law enforcement person concerned about anything unsubstantiated.
Another “factor” was that Trump “refused to criticize Russia on the campaign trail.” Really? Where was the FBI or DOJ angst in 2012 when President Barack Obama requested then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev tell Vladimir Putin that after the election, he would have “more flexibility” to deal with serious stuff like missile defense?
Where was the angst when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attempted a Russian reset? Was anyone in law enforcement tossing his cookies in 2010 when her spouse, Bill Clinton, took $500,000 from a Russian entity comprised of former Russian intelligence operatives? Or when the Obama administration allowed corrupt Russian-controlled companies to purchase Uranium One, thereby acquiring 20 percent of the U.S. uranium supply.
Another “factor” was that in July 2016, candidate Trump “called on Russia” “to hack into” Clinton’s emails. No. Trump’s remark, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you will be able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” was not a request to hack. Hillary had already used BleachBit to delete the emails so “even God cannot read them” according to former Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C. Trump was joking to attack his political opponent for destroying evidence or, in legal jargon, obstructing justice.
Which raises another New York Times “factor”: that firing Comey in May of 2017 was “obstruction of justice” calling for a criminal investigation in addition to the counterintelligence investigation already in place because of the pretextual factors cited above. Set aside the president’s clear constitutional authority to fire any executive branch person for any reason or for no reason.
The fact remains that a person cannot be charged with obstruction of justice if the act at issue cannot obstruct justice, meaning it cannot thwart the investigation. Even if a special counsel had not been (improperly) appointed, the FBI top dog’s departure does not affect in any way the continuing work of the FBI employees below him. Indeed, it has not. Where is the obstruction?
Moreover, if firing Comey obstructed justice, why wasn’t Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who recommended the firing, also placed under investigation?
The New York Times story was created to obfuscate the real criminal conspiracy: violation of Title 18 of U.S. Code Section 242, which prohibits any person under color of law (i.e. Obama administration personnel) to deprive another of “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution.” Such legal protection includes being free from a criminal investigation based on false charges.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Perhaps the bizarre January 20, 2017 email Susan Rice wrote “to herself” purporting to document a January 5, 2017 meeting with President Obama, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, FBI Director Comey and Vice President Joe Biden, gives a clue as to some of those conspirators. The meeting discussed the Steele dossier and Russian collusion, but curiously Rice stressed that the former president said every aspect should be handled “by the book.” Yet, Strzok had told his FBI colleague and paramour Lisa Page not to worry about Trump being elected because “We’ll stop it.”
The brazen plot against President Trump by the Obama-era FBI and DOJ continues, enabled by a complicit media. The odor of corruption has long been noxious. But the Democrats and media hold their collective noses. The criminal clique, via the New York Times, has announced to the world, “Catch me if you can.”
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE BY VICTORIA TOENSING
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE BY JOSEPH DIGENOVA
Joseph diGenova is a former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, co-founder of the law firm of diGenova & Toensing and an informal legal adviser to President Trump.]]>
By Sidney Powell | Renowned Former Federal Prosecutor
The Supreme Court held long ago in Brady v. Maryland that the Constitution requires the prosecution, which holds all the cards in a criminal case, to give the defense all evidence favorable to the defendant, whether it impeaches a witness, mitigates punishment or shows his innocence. Indeed, the burden is on prosecutors to find anything in the possession of the government that is favorable to the defense.
From the minute Judge Emmet G. Sullivan received the case against Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, which will be decided on Tuesday, he ordered Mueller to provide the defense with all Brady material. Last week, Judge Sullivan specifically ordered Mueller to produce any FBI interview reports — called 302s — or memoranda relevant to the original interview of Gen. Flynn. Ironically, Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley has been requesting the agents’ notes and 302s for two years. Did Mueller comply?
Mueller has thumbed his nose at Judge Sullivan’s order. He produced only a 302 created by his own squad seven months later from his own agent’s interview of none other than the infamous, fired-for-bias, disgraced, Trump-loathing, former Agent Peter Strzok — the guy who swore he’d “stop” President Trump and devised “an insurance policy” with his mistress Lisa Page and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe in case Trump won the election. We are watching Mueller execute that insurance policy by the day.
The evidence indicates Mueller has destroyed or is suppressing Brady material. There was an original 302 created within five days — by FBI protocol — of the Jan. 24, 2016 ambush interview of General Flynn by two agents — Strzok and Special Agent Joe Pientka. It is mentioned in the Strzok-Page text messages and on page four of the recrafted 302 Mueller filed. Comey read the original 302 before he was fired.
It existed — as Grassley well knows. It was written by Agent Pientka, who also took extensive handwritten notes, whose name is redacted from Mueller’s filing, and who seems to have disappeared. Where are the original 302, his notes, and where is Agent Pientka? Grassley has been trying to get access to all three for almost two years.
Mueller’s filing confirms that Agent Pientka was assigned to take notes of the interview. Judge Sullivan’s order encompasses the production of those notes. Where are they? Were they destroyed despite Grassley’s longstanding request and Judge Sullivan’s original Brady order? The failure to produce them is another Brady violation that warrants the dismissal of the charges against Flynn and warrants holding Mueller and his team in contempt of court.
And no doubt Mueller is aware of other Brady material in the possession of the government. There are two important sets of information being withheld from the defense under the guise of classification.
According to California Congressman Devin Nunes speaking on Laura Ingraham’s program last week, there is testimony from none other than former FBI Director James Comey himself, speaking before House committees, that is exculpatory of Flynn.
Because Comey just confessed on national TV that he oh-so-cleverly, gleefully, and deliberately breached all protocols and any semblance of ethics to ensnare the new administration and Flynn in their carefully calculated perjury trap, there is every reason to declassify Comey’s testimony immediately. The public is entitled to see his duplicity.
John Solomon reported, and Grassley has identified, information in the possession of the DIA that is exculpatory of Flynn. Apparently, the information remains classified — most likely to protect Comey from outrageous abuses of allowing private contractors to mine our intelligence gathering systems as far back as 2012 for nefarious reasons including unmasking and private profit — but that does not absolve Mueller of his obligation to produce it to the defense.
At a minimum, the information must be given to Judge Sullivan under seal. In the alternative, the president should declassify this material immediately, because the government has a solemn legal obligation to produce at least the substance of all exculpatory information to the defendant. If there are true national security interests to be protected, a summary will suffice.
It gets worse. The Inspector General of the Department of Justice reported late last week that Mueller wiped Peter Strzok’s cell phone of all messages during the crucial time he was working for the special counsel. The IG was unable to recover any text messages from it.
This was after the inspector general informed Mueller of the extreme bias of Strzok and Page evidenced by thousands of text messages on their phones. These messages were so egregious they required their termination from Mueller’s squad. Not only did Mueller hide this development from Congress, but he destroyed evidence on Strzok’s phone and allowed DOJ to do the same for Page’s phone. That’s a crime. Mueller put Paul Manafort in solitary confinement for simply trying to contact a witness.
Any ethical law Department of Justice official would have taken custody of all electronic devices of Strzok and Page immediately upon discovery of their extreme bias and blatant misconduct — or certainly upon their termination — and preserved all the evidence. For Mueller to destroy this evidence is blatant obstruction of justice that warrants his immediate termination. The same is true for Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein who was “overseeing” it at the time.
Mueller has shown abject contempt for the wrong court. Judge Sullivan is a real judge who believes in the rule of law and has the integrity to enforce it equally. The evidence strongly suggests Mueller violated Brady, destroyed or suppressed evidence, and obstructed justice in violation of 18 USC §1512(c). He has disgraced himself and the Department of Justice. Mueller’s time is up.
Sidney Powell, a former federal prosecutor, and veteran of 500 federal appeals is the author of “LICENSED TO LIE: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice.” She is a senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research and senior policy adviser for America First.
Now, a bombshell happened that has not hit the Drive-By Media, and it’s from John Solomon who, on Friday, reported that there were at least six different deep state operatives who attempted to infiltrate and set up the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.
Now, we know of two or three. We know of Joseph Mifsud, the Maltese professor and his involvement with George Papadopoulos. And we know of Stefan Halper. And we know of the Australian ambassador, John Howard.
~ Rush Limbaugh
By John Solomon
Early in my reporting that unraveled the origins of the Trump-Russia collusion probe, tying it to Hillary Clinton’s campaign and possible Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) abuses, I started to see patterns just as in the old mob meetings: FBI or intelligence-connected figures kept showing up in Trump Town USA during the 2016 campaign with a common calling card.
The question now is, who sent them and why?
Interviews with more than 50 witnesses in the Trump case and reviews of hundreds of pages of court filings confirm the following:
The recipients of these overtures are all household names, thanks to the infamy of the now very public probe — Paul Manafort, Donald Trump Jr., Michael Cohen, Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn, Sam Clovis, and Roger Stone, to name a few.
Some of the instigators of the contacts have been acknowledged in public: Professor Stefan Halper, Russian businessman Hank Greenberg, former MI6 agent Christopher Steele and former FBI informer Felix Sater, who is “Individual 2” identified in the Cohen plea deal this week.
Others I identified through interviews, but U.S. officials have asked me to keep them private to avoid compromising their identities or nexus to intelligence and law enforcement work.
The chances that so many would converge into then-candidate Donald Trump’s circle, in such a short period around an election, are about as rare as winning the Mega Millions lottery. In other words, most were not coincidences. A few, maybe, but not all.
And that leaves the biggest question: Who dispatched or controlled each emissary?
At least two important bodies in Congress — the House Intelligence and Senate Judiciary committees — demanded to be secretly briefed on payments to “undercovers.” They’ve been pretty tight-lipped since, except to express concerns that the public would be alarmed by what was divulged.
From those members of Congress, we can deduce that some of the contacts that occurred in 2016 were related to the political opposition, anti-Trump research funded by the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign and driven by Steele and his Fusion GPS employer. That work became known as the Steele dossier.
Others of the contacts appear to have been instigated by Western allies, such as an Australian diplomat’s barroom conversation in May 2016 with Papadopoulos.
And the rest are likely to have come from the FBI itself, which clearly dispatched informers, agents, and other operatives to gather evidence to bulk up the uncorroborated Steele dossier, so agents could get a FISA warrant in October 2016 to spy on Page, the Trump campaign adviser.
For a long time, most members of Congress have defended the FBI’s use of informants in the Trump probe. But there’s been a recent change in the tone of some early defenders.
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) recently told me he believes there may have been abuses of the FISA process. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) made similar comments, suggesting the FBI may have withheld exculpatory evidence it had gathered from its informers.
And House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) went further than anyone else just last week, suggesting the effort to gather evidence beyond the Steele dossier might be the most problematic of all because it was designed to be a political “insurance policy” against Trump winning the presidency.
The evidence-gathering for the “insurance policy” was “not only phony but, I think, as concerning as, if not more concerning than, the original information used in the Christopher Steele dossier,” Nunes disclosed on Sean Hannity’s Fox News TV show last week.
If this were a mob case, agents would not stop until they knew why each character appeared and who sent them. President Trump can help answer many, if not all, unanswered questions by declassifying the documents as he promised months ago. Congressional leaders and the Justice Department can impose accountability based on what is disclosed.
The American people deserve to know how much of the Trump-Russia probe was the result of agent provocateurs and political muckrakers and FISA cheaters, and how much was legitimate law enforcement work.
John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist whose work over the years has exposed U.S. and FBI intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientists’ misuse of foster children and veterans in drug experiments, and numerous cases of political corruption. He is The Hill’s executive vice president for video.
Ten Lost Tribes of Israel
By Gerald Flurry
Nov. 11, 2018, marked the 100-year anniversary of the end of World War I. United States President Donald Trump visited Paris, France, to commemorate the roughly 115,000 U.S. military personnel who died in that war.
The United States helped France mightily in that war. American troops gave their lives to protect and support the French Army and people. In both World Wars I and II, British and American forces delivered France from captivity; all totaled, almost 2 million British and American soldiers gave their lives to defend France and other European nations.
Today the brotherhood that once existed between the United States and France is in trouble. We need to understand the prophetic significance of what is happening.
Not coincidentally, Macron has chillingly characterized himself by way of coming into power as the Roman God Jupiter better known as the Greek God Zeus, moreover, the connections only branch out from there...
On the eve of President Trump’s European visit, French President Emmanuel Macron made some bold remarks that reveal a lot about how he feels about the U.S. today. In a radio interview on November 6, President Macron called for a “true European army.” That is a dramatic statement in its own right, but he added: “We have to protect ourselves with respect to China, Russia and even the United States of America“(emphasis mine throughout).
Even the United States? It is one thing for France to say it must defend against Communist China and dictatorial Russia. But what a deeply insulting thing to say about the democracy that crossed the Atlantic twice last century to rescue France from defeat!
Mr. Macron’s remarks didn’t really catch the attention of most people. Many perceived them as simply an attempt by Macron to get more from nato. But that is not the case!
We must grasp the significance of President Macron’s comments. When you understand Bible prophecy, you can recognize that this is part of a momentous trend that will change the world!
The Bible clearly tells us the identity of the American and British peoples. In his book The United States and Britain in Prophecy, Herbert W. Armstrong explained in detail how America and Britain are descended from the tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim, the sons of Joseph.
Order your free copy of The United States and Britain in Prophecy or read online.
And France, Mr. Armstrong explained, is descended from Reuben, the eldest son of Jacob and another of those “lost” Israelite tribes. Many of the modern French have descended from this Israelite patriarch, and Reuben is the name for France in biblical prophecy.
Genesis 37 documents Reuben betraying his younger brother Joseph. Mr. Armstrong taught, and the Bible clearly reveals, that this ancient betrayal is also an end-time prophecy that France (Reuben) would betray the U.S. (Manasseh, son of Joseph).
Notice this critical passage regarding America and Britain: “And he [Jacob, renamed Israel] blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, … bless the lads, and let my name be named on them … and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth” (Genesis 48:15-16). As The United States and Britain in Prophecy proves, God answered this prayer. Manasseh and Ephraim did grow into a multitude. In fact, as God promised in Genesis 35:11, they became “a nation and a company of nations”—Manasseh a single “great” nation, and Ephraim “a multitude of nations” (see also Genesis 48:19). And the name “Israel” was named on these nations. They are the birthright nations, blessed above all others on Earth. How specific are these prophecies about the nations of Israel!
In all history, no other peoples match these descriptions better than America and the British Empire. That means prophetic Israel in this end time specifically refers to America and Britain.
But God didn’t prophesy only of what would happen to America and Britain.
Genesis 49 is an astounding chapter that contains important prophecies for today: “And Jacob called unto his sons, and said, Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the last days” (verse 1). We are reading from the first book of the Bible, and it is talking about the last days—the times we are living in now!
If you don’t know the modern identity of the sons of Jacob, you cannot understand Bible prophecy! And one-third of the Bible is devoted to prophesy.
The first son Jacob addressed in Genesis 49 is Reuben (verse 3). God clearly tells us that Reuben will play a role in events that occur in the last days. So we must know who Reuben is.
Why was Reuben addressed first? Because he was the firstborn. The blessings that God promised to Abraham, and that were conferred upon Abraham’s son Isaac and his grandson Jacob, were supposed to transfer to Jacob’s firstborn son, Reuben. But Reuben lost his birthright. Why? Jacob tells us: “Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel; because thou wentest up to thy father’s bed; then defiledst thou it: he went up to my couch” (verse 4). Reuben had sexual relations with his father’s concubine. Isn’t it interesting that even today, Paris is called the “city of love” and France is renowned for its libertine approach to sex? Because of Reuben’s great sexual sin, the birthright blessings went instead to Joseph, the firstborn son of Jacob’s other wife, Rachel.
“Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he was the firstborn; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father’s bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright” (1 Chronicles 5:1). Chronicles is the last book of the Old Testament as it was originally compiled and points us directly to the New Testament. Ezra gathered information from the former prophets and wrote that book. That means it is prophecy for today. Ezra wrote about the state of the birthright promise in these last days.
Read the history of Joseph and Reuben yourself in Genesis 37 through 46. Jacob favored Joseph above his other sons, and that provoked a lot of sibling rivalry. Making matters worse, Joseph told his brothers about dreams he had indicating that his descendants would “reign over” those of his brothers. This inspired such hatred in them that they conspired to murder Joseph! They planned to kill him and tell their father that Joseph had been slain by a wild animal. Reuben intervened. He convinced them to just leave him in a pit to die, and he planned to save him by coming back later to fetch him. But before he could do that, the brothers sold Joseph into slavery.
Reuben, the firstborn, wouldn’t boldly stand up to his brothers. He tried to “rescue” Joseph in a weak, evasive way. It was a betrayal that ended up enslaving his younger brother!
Your Bible says Reuben’s modern descendants will again betray the latter-day descendants of Joseph—America, and Britain!
The Bible prophesies of a European superpower led by Germany. France will meekly submit to and participate in this German-dominated “beast” of Revelation 13. In so doing, France will cruelly betray the allies it fought alongside in two world wars against Germany! Yes, Reuben’s descendants will play a treacherous role in “selling” their brother into captivity and slavery, just as their ancestor did more than 3,700 years ago!
We are seeing the beginning of that betrayal today!
Remember, the sons of Jacob are brothers. This is about a family. And Reuben, this prophecy tells us, is “unstable as water.” You never know exactly how he is going to behave, even toward his own brother.
This instability is exactly what we are seeing in the French-American relationship today. When President Trump visited France in July 2017, he was treated like royalty! Now the French leadership is sending a brash, treacherous message of opposition.
President Macron’s words were not part of a minor spat, as some in the media characterized it. This strikes at the very heart and core of end-time Bible prophecy! Bible prophecy makes clear exactly what is happening.
Just four days before the World War I commemorations, President Macron made other provocative comments we need to think about. Touring a battlefield of the Great War, Macron praised Marshal Philippe Pétain, who was to be honored at a ceremony at Napoleon’s Tomb that weekend. Pétain was a French general during World War i. But he was more than that: In June 1940, he was appointed the prime minister of France and immediately surrendered France to Adolf Hitler.
Between 1940 and 1944, Pétain collaborated with Hitler while presiding over Vichy France. British historian Andrew Roberts wrote that Pétain “participated enthusiastically in sending non-French Jews to the death camps—principally Auschwitz—in a way that the Germans simply did not have the manpower or local knowledge to achieve.”
President Macron apparently rejects this history. He told reporters that Pétain was a “great soldier—this is a reality.”
Then, at the World War i centenary ceremony in Paris, Macron took the opportunity to publicly rebuke President Trump for recently saying he was a nationalist who puts America first.
Standing before a host of world leaders, Macron lectured America’s president on the difference between nationalism and patriotism. “Nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism,” he said. “By saying ‘our interests first, who cares about the others,’ we erase what a nation holds dearest, what gives it life, what makes it great, and what is essential—its moral values.” President Macron’s speech was heard around the world, and everyone understood exactly who he was addressing!
It was in the midst of this important anniversary week that the French president called for a European army. “We will not protect Europeans unless we decide to have a true European army,” he said. The Times called it “his strongest language yet” for a military union. Europe is striving for a united military—and has been for quite some time.
And what will Europeans do with that army? Macron explicitly said it was needed to protect Europe “with respect to China, Russia, and even the United States.”Does that sound like a stable brotherhood, like the one in World Wars I and ii?
Macron wants to push America out of Europe! The way he views it, France and Europe don’t need America anymore! As recently as World War ii, America lost hundreds of thousands of men saving Europe and France! How can anyone simply forget all that—unless they are unstable as water?
Brig. Gen. (Ret.) Anthony J. Tata wrote about those comments: “Macron could not have levied a greater insult at America and its veterans on this 100th anniversary of the armistice signed between the Allies and Germany on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month in 1918 to end World War I and, ironically, save Europe” (Fox News, Nov. 10, 2018). It’s as if Macron was spitting on the graves of those men...