Stop Calling Them Progressives!

Leftists are totally something else.

Frontpage mag

Joy Overbeck

When I hear prominent conservative media commentators and brainy columnists call America-haters bent on destroying our noble Constitutional Republic “progressives” I feel the top of my head may fly up and stick on the ceiling. They should know better. The sickening behavior of these tyrannical anarchists are the very opposite of progressive which Webster defines as “continuous improvement; the development of an individual or group in a direction considered more beneficial than and superior to the previous level.” There’s nothing beneficial for us as citizens or our nation about lawlessness, destruction of private property by black-masked Antifa terrorists, attacks on the First and Second Amendments, cancelling the voices of those who disagree with WOKE dogma, and shrill Maxine Waters-esque calls for personal attacks. Yet as long as we let them get away with calling themselves progressives, they can claim moral and intellectual superiority over the rest of us. 

Call them radical leftists, fascists, socialists, Marxists…or Democrats. But anointing them progressives automatically makes those of us on the flip side “regressives” – backward-thinking, slack-jawed, snaggle-toothed, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals. Which gives know-nothings like Joe Biden carte blanche to label the governors of Texas and Mississippi lifting Covid mask mandates “Neanderthal thinking…”  Of course, the governors were vindicated when disease cases and deaths in both states dropped dramatically after masks were gone.  

For the radical left, deceptive language is a kind of performance art. They cynically use shiny, promising words to convince the uniformed to line up behind their latest fraud. For example, Obama’s “Affordable Care Act” was a lie from the jump, leading as it did to higher premiums and astronomical deductibles that left millions of suffering Americans paying more but ending up literally without any healthcare insurance at all. Similarly, the “For the People Act” (HB1) in reality allows the gorilla of the federal government to crush the peoples’ voice that the Constitution gives to individual state legislatures in creating election law.  

Rather than advancing progress, the “progressive” credo hearkens back to the bad old days of dictators Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot and the moldy stink of their failed ideas: oppressive government control and stealing from productive citizens under the guise of “leveling the playing field” and “equality.” How curious that the innocents on the receiving end of these marvelous systems, variously known as socialism, Communism, or Marxism, have died in the millions at the hands of their governments rather than enter the earthly utopia they were promised. According to historians, those gullible believers in progressivism amount to between 100 and 120 million lost souls.   

And yet here it comes again, bolting upright from its pool of blood with new life like a horror film villain we thought was slain. This new form of class struggle isn’t the proletariat versus the bourgeoisie of traditional Marxist cant; now all white people are the oppressors and black and brown minorities are cast as the victims. Mix into this ugly lie the social stresses of the China virus which has allowed clueless bureaucrats to paralyze the producers of the richest economy in the world for over a year, plus anarchy and violence in our cities increasing as police presence fades, and we have an unsettled and bewildered people the like of which we have never seen in America. 

What to do? First, fight back against the “progressive” racism that demonizes people for the color of their skin. Organize with other parents and citizens to forbid your local school board to impose “critical race theory” and “gender fluidity,” including the promotion of transgenderism, on children’s education curricula. Help Trump’s prosperous economy return by pressuring politicians to stop sending fat government checks that amount to more than a paycheck for many Americans. 

Economists say people earning less than $32,000 can potentially make more from unemployment aid than from their previous jobs, and that stark fact is delaying the return of a normal healthy economy. Under Biden’s recently enacted $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, workers who lost their jobs to the pandemic shutdowns are now making more in unemployment benefits than they did in wages. And that is stopping people from returning to work — just when employers are trying to reopen across the nation. Combined federal and state unemployment benefits add up to an average of $638 per week, encouraging people accustomed to staying home for the last year to keep staying home. That’s why, with 7.4 million jobs available nationwide, the anemic 266,000 jobs added in April were a dismaying indicator of a real problem with the government’s misplaced generosity. 

The year-plus of no work has robbed Americans of their sense of purpose and added to the malaise depressing so many of us. The satisfaction of work, almost any kind of work, is essential for a healthy sense of self-worth in humans. Even FDR, the Democrat president who created the New Deal to aid the jobless in the Great Depression, warned against the habit of welfare; “relief” as it was called then. “The lessons of history show that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber,” he said in 1935. “To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. The federal government must and shall quit this business of relief.” 

Yes it must – and it must now for us to reclaim our national character: industriousness, personal responsibility, and eagerness for future achievement that have made us the most dynamic and successful nation on earth.

The Left’s Plan to Commandeer the Supreme Court

And control all three branches of the federal government.

Frontpage mag

Joseph Klein

The fate of America’s constitutional republic hangs in the balance as the leftwing progressive base of the Democratic Party tries to parlay Democrat control of the White House and Congress to obliterate the independence of the Supreme Court.

President Joe Biden has kicked things off by naming a 36-member commission to examine possible changes to the size and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as well as proposals to set term limits for Supreme Court justices. The commission has 180 days to report back on its study of the issues, although it has not been given a mandate to make any formal recommendations.

While advertised as being bipartisan, the commission’s co-chairs, Bob Bauer and Cristina Rodriguez, both worked for the Obama administration. Even so, establishing a commission to analyze a hot button issue is often regarded as a convenient way to bury the issue. Not this time, however. The left won’t allow Biden or the Democrat-controlled Congress off the hook so easily. Even on the rare occasions when Biden’s old centrist instincts seem about to kick in, he quickly backtracks in the face of blowback from his left flank. What then-Senator Biden called a “bonehead” idea in 1983 and an “institutional power grab” in 2005 is now very much in play during Biden’s presidency.

The left sees immediate radical change to the structure and composition of the Supreme Court as necessary to cement its permanent control over the third branch of the federal government. That can only happen, however, after first nuking the Senate filibuster to pass their misnamed “For the People Act.” Also referred to simply as S.1, this bill would federalize slipshod election procedures across the country, eliminating state protections against potential election fraud, voter intimidation, illegal votes, and inaccurate vote counts. Passage of the bill will help Democrats guarantee their enduring control of Congress and the White House. With the filibuster already cast aside, Democrats will then be able to push through major changes to the Supreme Court this term with their slender majority. The result will be the left’s tight grip on the Supreme Court, while ensuring that the other two elected branches remain firmly in their pockets in future elections.

On April 15^th, four Democrats in Congress decided not to even wait for Biden’s commission to complete its work. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, Rep. Hank Johnson, Rep. Mondaire Jones, and Senator Edward J. Markey introduced the Judiciary Act of 2021 to expand the Supreme Court by adding four seats, creating a 13-justice Supreme Court. This would represent the first change in the size of the Supreme Court since 1869.

“Some people will accuse us of packing the court. We’re not packing the court, we’re unpacking it,” Nadler sneered. Markey claimed that the “legislation will restore the Court’s balance and public standing and begin to repair the damage done to our judiciary and democracy, and we should abolish the filibuster to ensure we can pass it.”

Even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is not willing to oblige these demagogues just yet. Pelosi said that she “has no plans” to bring their bill to the House floor at this time. She wants to wait for Biden’s commission to finish its work before taking any further steps. But Pelosi has not ruled out supporting such a change down the road. “It’s not out of the question,” Pelosi said. “It has been done before.”

Yes, Congress has the constitutional authority to alter the size of the Supreme Court. However, it has chosen not to do so during a span of 152 years for good reason. When FDR tried to push forward his court packing scheme in 1937, the Democrat-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee issued a report at the time declaring that “we would rather have an independent Court, a fearless Court…than a Court that, out of fear or sense of obligation to the appointing power, or factional passion, approves any measure we may enact.” FDR’s plan was shot down by his own party.

Democrats in Congress today no longer show such respect for the independence of a co-equal branch of the federal government. They are willing to increase the size of the Supreme Court solely for the purpose of turning it into a rubber stamp for their radical agenda. So long as Democrats succeed with their strategy to lock in continuing Democrat control of Congress and the White House by doing away with state law safeguards against election shenanigans, they have nothing to worry about. There will be no future Republican Congress and president elected who will be able to add more conservative justices.

However, there have been a few liberals with a conscience who have spoken out in recent times against court packing, as Joe Biden did when he was his own man in the Senate.

The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg – the liberals’ heroine replaced by Justice Amy Coney Barrett – told NPR in July 2019 that “Nine seems to be a good number. It’s been that way for a long time. I think it was a bad idea when President Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the court.” Justice Ginsburg worried that court packing “would make the court look partisan,” adding that “it would be that — one side saying, ‘When we’re in power, we’re going to enlarge the number of judges, so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to.’ “

At Harvard Law School’s annual Scalia lecture on April 6^th, Justice Stephen G. Breyer warned about how court packing would “reflect and affect the rule of law itself.” Justice Breyer added, “If the public sees judges as ‘politicians in robes,’ its confidence in the courts, and in the rule of law itself, can only diminish, diminishing the Court’s power, including its power to act as a ‘check’ on the other branches.”

Progressives dismiss such arguments, of course, and indeed are pressing for Justice Breyer to retire so that a much younger and more left leaning justice can replace him. However, a few moderate Democrats in the House may be wary of supporting a bill to pack the Supreme Court, fearing the issue would be hung around their necks in Republican ads during the next election cycle. Democrat Senator Joe Manchin has declared his opposition to court packing legislation, which means it would be dead in the Senate even if the filibuster were eliminated or severely weakened.

Court packing also does not have widespread public support. In a New York Times/Siena College poll conducted last October during the height of the presidential campaign, a question was asked: ”If Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to the Supreme Court and Joe Biden is elected president, do you think that Democrats should or should not increase the size of the Supreme Court to include more than nine justices?” 58 percent said no. 31 percent said yes. 11 percent said they didn’t know or refused to answer.

Thus, Democrats may decide to rally around a seemingly less drastic alternative to immediately expanding the Supreme Court to 13 members – term limits for future Supreme Court justices. There is more public support for term limits than for court packing. But the proponents of this idea are wolves in sheep’s clothing.

Term limits for Supreme Court justices are arguably unconstitutional since Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution states that “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour…” Except in the case of impeachment or early retirement, this provision has been interpreted to mean a lifetime term.

The term limit advocates try to get around the constitutional issue by arguing that their reform would only apply to future justices. Moreover, they propose that, after a future justice’s Supreme Court term has expired, the justice would be free to remain in the judiciary as a senior appellate judge. They believe this demotion would satisfy the Constitution’s good behavior term language since the justices would still be judges. However, the Constitution’s text appears to tie the “good behavior” term for Supreme Court justices to their specific “Office” of Supreme Court justice, not to any post in the judicial branch. In her interview with NPR, Justice Ginsburg said that the term limits idea was unrealistic because of this constitutional provision and because, as she pointed out, “Our Constitution is powerfully hard to amend.”

In any case, on a policy level, Democrats proposing term limits for future Supreme Court justices are selling snake oil.

Take, for example, legislation proposed by Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Don Beyer (D-Va.) that would apply only to future justices and would limit their service on the Supreme Court to 18 years. New justices would be appointed in the first and third years of each presidential term. Since, under this plan, none of the current justices would be forced off the Supreme Court, there will be a period during which more than nine justices will be serving at the same time. It is just a slower way of achieving the same objective as court packing.

If something like the Khanna-Beyer bill is passed in 2021, for example, President Biden would get to appoint one justice this year. This would expand the Court to ten until one of the current justices retires or dies. By a simple majority in the Senate (with Vice President Harris casting a tie-breaking vote), a progressive will be added to the Supreme Court. Biden’s next appointment would occur in 2023, even if there is then no vacancy on the bench. That could mean eleven justices until one of the current justices retires or dies. Assuming the Senate remains in Democrat hands, with the help of vote cheating enabled by the falsely entitled “For the People Act,” another progressive will be added to the Supreme Court. A Democrat White House and Senate in 2025 will ensure yet another progressive added to the Supreme Court, tilting the Supreme Court in a leftward direction. And so on. If a vacancy occurs during one of the off years, it would be filled temporarily by a lower court judge, until the following year when the president nominates, and the Senate confirms, the next term-limited justice.

The combined effect of the Democrats’ federalizing of elections to slant the outcomes in their direction and the passage of court packing or term limit legislation for the Supreme Court will be to institute permanent one party rule in Washington D.C. for all three branches of government. Separation of powers and checks and balances will be dead.

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction,” Ronald Reagan once said. We are at that crossroads right now. We must fight the leftwing progressives’ attempt to turn this country into their tyrannical domain lest, as Reagan warned, we “spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.”

Back to the Future with FISA

Frontpage mag

Lloyd Billingsley

Last month DC Circuit Court Judge James Boasberg gave FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith probation, a small fine, and community service instead of the five years in prison and the $250,000 fine his crime deserved. As it happens, Boasberg is also presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court that Clinesmith had defrauded. More than a travesty of justice, Boasberg’s action lifted the robe of secrecy on the FISA court, whose unchecked power troubles many in Congress.

“The FISA court is a judicial body with no parallel in American history,” Sen. Ron Wyden explained in 2013. “A group of judges operating in complete secret and issuing binding rulings based solely on the government’s arguments.” As Sen. Richard Blumenthal clarified, the FISA court “exercises vast invisible power.” From the start, that powerful court was all about targeting American citizens. 

“FISA was originally enacted in the 1970s to curb  widespread abuses by both Presidents and former FBI officials of bugging and wiretapping Americans without any judicial warrant,” Sen. Patrick Leahy testified in 2002. One of the victims was the leftist Morton Halperin, who wrote in Defense Strategies for the Seventies that the Soviet Union constituted no danger to the United States, and the USSR never contemplated the use of military force against Western Europe. Halperin’s telephone was illegally tapped by officials in the Nixon administration.

“It is a great pleasure for me to testify again on FISA,” Halperin said in the same 2002 hearing. “As you know, I was deeply involved in the process that led to the enactment of it. I urged the Congress to support it. I still think it is in the national interest and plays a vital role.”

Sen. Edward Kennedy introduced the FISA Act in 1977, during the administration of Jimmy Carter. Ronald Reagan’s defeat of Carter so enraged Kennedy that he sought help from the Soviet Union, then headed by the KGB’s Yuri Andropov, a hard-line Stalinist. Kennedy offered to help Andropov deal with Reagan and in return the Soviet boss would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election.

Sen. Kennedy collaborated with a hostile foreign power to influence an American election. The FISA process failed to stop or expose this criminal collaboration, which did not emerge until the 1990s. Greater failures were yet to come. As Sen. Arlen Specter also testified in 2002, FISA played no role in stopping the terrorists of September 11, 2001.

“The failure to obtain a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for Zacarias Moussaoui was a matter of enormous importance,” Specter said. If American officials had gotten into Moussaoui’s computer, and followed up on reports of terrorist flight training, Specter said, “9/11 might well have been prevented.” It wasn’t, yet the FISA court, a body with no parallel in American history, continued to wield unchecked power.

By 2016, the “composite character” David Garrow described in Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama had transformed the nation into a more authoritarian arrangement. The outgoing president picks his successor and rigs the FBI and DOJ to support Hillary Clinton and attack Donald Trump. His campaign was not collaborating with Russia, so the task for the FBI and DOJ was to get creative. Enter Kevin Clinesmith, of the FBI’s national security and cyber law division.

The FBI lawyer falsified an email to say that U.S. Navy veteran Carter Page was not a CIA asset, when in fact he was.  That exposed the Trump associate to surveillance under FISA. Were it not for DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, the crime would have gone undiscovered.

In August 2020 Clinesmith pleaded guilty to falsifying the email, so in January 2021 he was an admitted felon awaiting sentence, not a “defendant,” as Boasberg described him. The FISA court boss also told the court Clinesmith had made a “misstatement,” a strange description of deliberate falsification. The FISA warrant to surveille Carter Page, Boasberg also explained, would have been approved even without the lawyer’s misstatement.

Judge Boasberg made these statements in open court, and his conduct is evidence of the way he acts as presiding judge of the FISA court. That body holds a distinct advantage over the U.S. Supreme Court, which operates in public, with rulings and opinions endlessly analyzed.

In 2014, Chief Justice John Roberts appointed Boasberg to the FISA court, but there was no public hearing to determine his fitness to serve on that body.  The president of the United States can be impeached and so can justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. It remains unclear if FISA court judges can be impeached, and whether the secret court would allow any impeachment attempt to be made public.

Boasberg knew the FISA court would have approved the warrant on Carter Page without Clinesmith’s falsification. So Boasberg doubtless signed off the entire process, bogus dossier and all. The FISA court boss then slips back into his circuit court robe and lets Clinesmith go with a tap on the wrist. This has no parallel on the U.S. Supreme Court.

John Roberts, Sonia Sotomayor, Clarence Thomas et al cannot let stand a lower court ruling then step down to the lower court and participate in the sentencing process. So even without lifetime tenure – FISA court judges have a seven-year term – Boasberg holds a distinct advantage. In effect, Boasberg is the nation’s most powerful justice, and the FISA court the most powerful in the land.

Kevin Clinesmith was the only person to face criminal charges from the investigation of U.S. Attorney John Durham. The alleged man of integrity brought no charges against FBI director James Comey and FBI counterintelligence boss Peter Strzok. They operated above the law and got away with it, and that travesty of justice will have serious consequences going forward.

If the FBI wants a warrant to spy on any American for partisan purposes, presiding FISA court  judge James Boasberg will be okay with it. Meanwhile, Morton Halperin, who was “deeply involved” in the creation of FISA, is now a senior advisor with the Open Society Foundations, founded by George Soros. The leftist billionaire is surely delighted with the way things have turned out.

On Thanksgiving, Democrats Demand The Ultimate Family Separation Policy

The Federalist

By Kylee Zempel

More than eight months after “15 days to flatten the curve,” our so-called medical experts, politicos, and pundits are bidding us to avoid our family at all costs over the holidays, lest we die. This Thanksgiving week, family separation is the name of the game, with governors and local authorities implementing onerous restrictions to discourage people from leaving their homes.

“If you are planning to spend Thanksgiving with people outside your household, we urge you to reconsider,” wrote a group of governors in the pages of the Washington Post. These authors included little tyrants such as Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, whose lockdown orders arbitrarily outlawed the sale of gardening seeds while allowing patrons to purchase lottery tickets, Gov. Andy Beshear, who ordered that Kentucky police record church attendees’ license plate numbers at Easter services as “the only way we can ensure that your decision doesn’t kill someone else,” and Gov. J.B. Pritzker, whose family violated his own lockdown orders on more than one occasion to travel to their second home in Florida.

http://huffingtonpost.com

Instead, these hypocritical governors insist, “Get together with your family via Zoom to ensure your loved ones stay safe.” Nothing says grateful gathering like a conference call with your kin.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advise the same, qualifying Thanksgiving gatherings as “highest risk,” although the CDC’s own data suggests lockdowns could kill as many people as the Wuhan virus itself.

The media goes right along with all of it, instilling fear and shaming Americans who question them, while also violating health orders themselves and then lying about it. These media elites are already wishing us a very COVID Christmas too, with CNN’s Jake Tapper declaring, “Christmas is probably not going to be possible.”

‘Short-Term’ Is a Myth

“We must make short-term sacrifices for our long-term health,” the governors wrote trying to make their rhetoric more palatable in the Washington Post article. “None of us wants the guilt of gathering and unwittingly spreading this virus to someone we love.”

Nothing about these sacrifices has been “short-term,” however. The March days turned into the summer weeks, which have led to the winter months, which is turning into a full year and more — just gone. The fearmongering has guilted families into objectifying their loved ones, viewing them as threats, and now many of them are gone anyway — dying of cancer, dying of old age, and dying alone. We’ve turned fear into our friend and family into our foe. Is this really best “for our long-term health”?

“Think about your last Thanksgiving and the people you were surrounded by — your parents, grandparents, brothers and sisters, neighbors and friends, or the family you have chosen for yourself,” the group of governors urged. “Picture their faces — laughing with you, watching football with you or even arguing with you about politics. As hard as it will be to not see them this Thanksgiving, imagine how much harder it would be if their chairs are empty next year.”

COVID-19 Rhetoric Is Exhausting and Absurd

Americans are exhausted of the rhetoric and are weary of trying to discern the right thing in the highly politicized pandemic. Of course we don’t want to subject our friends and family to danger, and of course we don’t want their chairs to be empty next year — but we are rational actors. We know every single time we gather around the table, it could be the last, pandemic or not. What is “thanksgiving” if not gratitude for the gracious gifts we don’t deserve, including people, with whom our days are numbered? What an awful prospect to think of relinquishing our limited days with family as though time with them next year were a guarantee.

Should we put our trust in the advice of health experts and the elected that have been known to lie and cheat, and hold at arm’s length the people who most give us life lest they kill us? These “experts” are the same people who insist church is more dangerous than mass protests and rioting, and the same politicians who advise you to wear your mask between bites of food.

Is it so much more dangerous to gather with loved ones over a meal than to eat surrounded by strangers at a restaurant? What about our mental health? Is it wise to progress through the cold winter months, as seasonal depression sets in for many people, with a dismissive attitude toward those who should be under our care?

Joe Biden used the same “empty chair” rhetoric during the last presidential debate, warning that we’re headed into a “dark winter.” But are family separation policies and paralyzing fear of a virus really less dark than the possibility of physical death? Shouldn’t we be permitted to make these assessments and take these risks without condemnation? Eliminating all risk goes against all the things American, and shunning community weakens the bonds that make life worth living.

Gather This Thanksgiving

Life is too short to live it in fear of dying. Of course, we should not be reckless, but rather prudent and charitable so we truly can enjoy an abundant Advent season and gather once again next November with gratitude.

For at-risk family members, use this opportunity to find ways to serve them and to demonstrate your affection even though they might not be present at your table this year. Their need for caution doesn’t eradicate their need for community; don’t make yourself feel better by cutting them out of your life and telling yourself it’s for their safety.

For young, healthy family and friends — whose coronavirus recovery rate is north of 99.9 percent — gather, and give thanks. There’s simply no rational reason to isolate yourself.

One public health expert even advised The Federalist that Americans should “have a Thanksgiving or Christmas get-together with no restrictions, but if older people (60+) are going to be present alongside younger people (18-60), be sure to get rapid antigen tests for everyone — especially the young — before the event.” These are reasonable precautions.

The group of governors concluded, “We will get through this together.” But that isn’t true — and it isn’t what they want. This holiday season, they want you to get through it alone. Be smart, but don’t let the petty tyrants keep you away from your loved ones this holiday season. Cherish the time with them because it is fleeting.

Communism is here

image via rightbias

Time to take a Stand

Traitor

Flopping Aces

By DrJohn

 

Definition of traitor

1: one who betrays another’s trust or is false to an obligation or duty

2: one who commits treason

During the theater known as the Donald Trump Impeachment hearings Adam Schiff conducted a number of interviews with “witnesses.”  He conducted them in a SCIF – Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility.

Talk of the impeachment inquiry is everywhere in America, but Americans have no idea what it actually looks like.

That’s because House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) has so far conducted the entire impeachment inquiry in a secret room in the basement of the Capitol building that is not accessible by the general public.

 

Just to the south of the Capitol Visitor Center underneath the dome and down one spiral staircase is a room hidden behind two heavy wooden doors.

On the doors are red signs with white letters that say: “Restricted Area. No public or media access. Cameras and recording devices prohibited without proper authorization.”

Behind those doors is a hallway, which leads to the secret room where Schiff is conducting the impeachment inquiry of President Trump.

The House Intelligence Committee has a huge hearing room in the Longworth House Office Building where they can hold hearings that do not concern classified material, which members of the public and journalists can attend.

But the impeachment inquiry is taking place in the committee’s Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) — a room for members to use when discussing and viewing classified material.

 

And here’s why

Answer me this……….

NZ Hunting Supplies

UNEQUIVOCALLY AND ABSOLUTELY WITHOUT A DOUBT – OBAMA KNEW ABOUT SPYING AND WAS IN ON IT

We now know without a doubt the former President Barack Obama was in on the Deep State’s actions to spy on President Trump and entrap his team members.  We don’t know how much spying and attempts of entrapment went on, but we do know Obama was aware of it all.

 

The Gateway Pundit

Joe Hoft

Democrats and Deep State dirty cops have claimed for months that there was no spying on the Trump campaign.  Now we know without a doubt that there was not only spying, but the dirty cops in the Deep State attempted to entrap Trump team members through this spying.  We also know without a doubt that Obama was in on it.

We know Obama was in on it based on numerous pieces of information. 

For starters we know that Obama spied on numerous people for years while he was President.  Obama took the US Intelligence community and corrupted it.  He used the US intelligence apparatus to spy on anyone and everyone and especially his enemies.  We put a list of the many individuals and entities Obama spied on that we know of here.

We also know that Hillary’s long lost emails were found in the White House.  This was reported by Judicial Watch in April 2019 –

Conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch announced that Bill Priestap, former Assistant Director of the FBI Counterintelligence Division admitted, in writing and under oath, that the FBI found Hillary Clinton’s emails in the Obama White House — specifically the Executive Office of the President!

The FBI also admitted that almost 49,000 Hillary Clinton emails were reviewed as a result of a search warrant for emails found on Anthony Weiner’s laptop.

We know that Susan Rice, Obama’s former National Security Advisor, left a email on the last day that she and Obama were in office that confirms Obama was in on it.  Senators Grassley and Graham sent a letter to Rice asking about this email –

Ambassador Rice appears to have used this email to document a January 5, 2017 Oval Office meeting between President Obama, former FBI Director James Comey and former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates regarding Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election.  In particular, Ambassador Rice wrote:

“President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities ‘by the book’.  The President stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective.  He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book.” 

Rice and Obama must have felt guilty about their crimes because they sent this email in an attempt to cover up their illegal actions.  Unfortunately, nobody is buying it.

We also know that Obama, in essence, told incoming President-elect Trump in the Oval office that he was involved in the Deep State coup.  Obama did this inadvertently by advising Trump not to hire General Michael Flynn.

President Obama warned Donald Trump against hiring Michael Flynn as national security adviser in the days after the 2016 election, according to three former Obama administration officials.

The warning came during an Oval Office meeting between Obama and Trump after the Republican’s victory. Flynn had been fired by the Obama administration as the head of the military’s intelligence branch.

This was plastered all over the media in May 2017 a few days before the Mueller Special Investigation was put into place by Rod Rosenstein.  Obama had to know about the coup in order to make this recommendation to Trump months earlier but the media only thought about using this to discredit both Trump and Flynn.  Now its coming back to haunt Obama.

In March 2019 Deep State coup participant James Clapper said to CNN’s Anderson Cooper –

One point I’d like to make, Anderson, that I don’t think has come up very much before, and I’m alluding now to the President’s [Trump’s] criticism of President Obama for all that he did or didn’t do before he left office with respect to the Russian meddling. If it weren’t for President Obama, we might not have done the intelligence community assessment that we did that set off a whole sequence of events which are still unfolding today, notably, special counsel Mueller’s investigation.

President Obama is responsible for that, and it was he who tasked us to do that intelligence community assessment in the first place. I think it’s an important point when it comes to critiquing President Obama.

 

Finally, if Clapper hasn’t said enough, former US Attorney Joe DiGenova was on the radio yesterday and he said point blank says that Obama knew about it all –

Obama was in on it.  It was a sham.  The Mueller investigation was a sham.  Obama spied on the opposition party.

Electoral College scheme: Grounds for civil war?

Renew AmericaBy Alan Keyes

 

Though all members of Congress are sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, it’s hard to believe that the Democrats among them have any intention of honoring that oath. In their bid to establish dictatorial, totalitarian, socialist rule in the United States, Democrats all over the country are pushing a plainly anti-constitutional scheme to erase the constitutional method for electing the president of the United States. Before considering their scheme, however, we need to remember why the people of the founding generation rejected the idea of electing the president by means of a national plebiscite, in which the people of the entire nation would vote, en masse, to decide the election.

 

People who in one form or another favor schemes for socialist dictatorship push the notion that “democracy” demands simple one-man, one-vote majority rule, in which the mass of the people divides against itself to make choices for the whole. But the leading lights of America’s founding generation rejected this approach in light of the fact that schemes for democratic government based on this approach have invariably failed. Within one or two generations, they declined through the cycle by which democracy declines toward tyranny through the machination of ambitious demagogues.

Demagogic tyranny, by encouraging the machinations of conspiratorial oligarchic cliques, declines toward the tyranny of one or another of the cliques, supplanting, neglecting and usurping democratic means. Oligarchs’ warlike competition impels them to rely more and more openly on violence, and thence on organized military forces. The authoritarian character of their strategic competition shifts power toward the force organized and directed by the most effective military genius. The conspiratorial rule of oligarchs is thus supplanted by the imperial military rule of the force inspired by that genius, military rule that uses it to rule over oligarchs and the people, as a whole.

This cycle of tyrannical regimes has mostly dominated the experience of humanity, punctuated by occasion intervals in which some balance of opposing powers enforces mutual respect for some semblance of right and justice informed by the voice of reason and goodwill. During the colonial period, however, the good people of the United States were encouraged by the potential for self-government discovered by their experiments in Christian polity. Their success encouraged them to believe that people inspired by faith to accept the wholesome self-discipline that Christianity demands of individuals could establish and maintain a form of government in which the occasional respite from the cycle of governments empowered by force and fear could be made permanent. They could transform the accidental balance of powerful forces into a permanent equilibrium of self-disciplined interests.

Instead of opposing forces temporarily stymied by their mutual opposition, that equilibrium would be sustained by the goodwill of individuals, self-consciously avowed to respect a common standard of God-endowed right and justice. That standard would, in turn, inform the measures (laws) they agreed upon to maintain and support their relations with one another. Moreover, as the habit and good fruits of that deliberate cooperation confirmed its worth, these people of goodwill would continually perfect the union born of their common sense of right and justice.

This vision of government of, by, and for the good people of the United States is a far cry from the forced notion of democratic dictatorship, based on the power of the masses. This individual-minded vision assumes that people are just that – human beings, not lumps of stone or clay. It assumes that they are motivated, as individuals, by a decent sense of right and wrong. It assumes that they have a conscience that impels them to see beyond the passions of the moment, in order to appreciate the good of the whole they comprise together, and from which they draw mutually supportive aid and good fruits. Above all, it assumes the activity of individuals, informed by a common sense of God-endowed right, who act in concert deliberately, not in mindless response to the pricks and goad of fear, grievance, or prideful passion.

With this in mind, consider the method of electing the president of the United States known to our history as the “Electoral College.” It involves voting by the whole people of the United States. But in the first place, that whole is divided into individual states. In the individual states, it is divided into individual districts. And in the individual districts, it focuses on the selection of individuals who best represent the whole people of each district.

The resultant vote is national in scope. But in substance, it reflects the diverse judgments of an array of districts. The individuals in those districts are not called to choose for the whole nation. They are called to choose, from among individuals living in their own area and general circumstances, someone who will represent their area’s overall spirit, mind, and circumstances, and will take them into account when making a judgment about the whole nation. But it must also be someone they trust to make that judgment with the care and concern they themselves have for the nation’s welfare.

Because the electors are chosen state by state, each state contributes to the outcome. Because their number reflects the total representation of the state in the national legislature, each state contributes to the result according to its weight in the national councils. The balance of diverse areas, interests and concerns is reflected in the process. It is not just a matter of numbers, but of distribution. No states are neglected, and each is given its due. Even as we describe the process, the description brings to mind the equilibrium the Constitution was crafted to maintain.

Now consider what the Democrats propose to do. They want a vote by the masses in each state. They then want all the states’ electoral votes to be cast for the candidate who wins a majority of votes nationwide. This would, in some cases, nullify the votes of the people of the state, imposing the national result on them regardless of their preference. Though the liars promoting it claim that this would count every vote, it actually means this: In states that have seceded from the Constitution, if the Democratic presidential candidate wins the national vote, all the states’ electoral votes will go to the Democrat, regardless of how the people of each state or district voted. Voters in non-Democratic districts will send no electors forward to cast their votes according to their preference. Their votes will, therefore, count for nothing, contrary to the Constitution’s intention.

Because the Democratic Party is now openly committed to the imposition of socialist, totalitarian dictatorship, they have no use for the equilibrium of interests the Constitution was framed to maintain. They want domination to result from the force of democratic power, not from a balanced account of the people’s goodwill. The result will reignite the cycle of tyrannical regimes the U.S. Constitution has helped the United States to avoid. It will put us on the path of perpetual tyranny, alternating with periods of bloody conflict, characteristic of human history, and of the totalitarian dictatorships that have blasted the prospects of all the nations socialists have conquered.

Fortunately, the result they aim to achieve cannot be achieved without a constitutional amendment. The states have no lawmaking power to alter the authority of electors chosen by the people. States can regulate the manner of choosing the electors, but they cannot dictate the terms of their vote, as if the electors themselves do not exist. Such legislation is not a law; it is an act of rebellion against the duly constituted government of the United States. If they pretend to claim power as a result of this anti-constitutional scheme, their rebellion will properly be the signal for civil war.

© Alan Keyes