Category: Daniel John Sobieski

209214.png

Dear Juanita Broaddrick


Using the hashtag “#DearProfessorFord,” the “sentence first, trial later” accusers of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh have been pouring out tweets expressing sympathy for the ordeal of Professor Christine Blasey Ford, the liberal Democrat activist.

They want an FBI investigation of an individual who won’t talk to the FBI of 36-year-old allegations of a drunken party she doesn’t remember the exact date or location of; how she got there; how she got home; who was there; or why, after she allegedly feared for her life, she didn’t even tell her parents.

No sympathy is expressed for Kavanaugh’s wife and two daughters or where he is going to go to get his reputation back.  How about a “Dear Mrs. Kavanaugh” letter expressing regret to her and her daughters for the slime her husband is being dragged through over charges that are less specific than most sightings of Bigfoot?

Bill Clinton rape accuser Juanita Broaddrick never got a letter expressing sympathy for her ordeal, nor did any of the other “bimbo eruptions” wife Hillary took care of with scathing attacks and organized threats and harassment.  She has an idea: if Ford does not want to testify, Broaddrick is quite willing to show up and tell the Senate Judiciary Committee just what credible charges of assault look like:

Juanita Broaddrick, whose Twitter profile reads, in part, “rape survivor of Bill Clinton,” has been watching the allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh unfold and is surprised by the accuser’s refusal to tell her story.  Christine Blasey Ford, the woman accusing Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her in high school, has yet to accept the invitation to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday.  The committee has even offered her concessions and are [sic] willing to speak to her in her home state of California, but still she has not accepted.


Well, Broaddrick said Wednesday that if Ford is not willing to testify about her allegation, she sure is.

She said in a tweet:

Just a thought… If Christine Ford declines to be interviewed Monday… I’m available to answer questions about my Rape by Bill Clinton.

She is disgusted by the double standard that says women who bring forth assault charges should be immediately deemed credible, a standard that seems to apply only to liberal Democrat women, and noted that Sen. Dianne Feinstein had absolutely no interest in what she had to say about Bill Clinton assaulting her.  As Broaddrick said on The Ingraham Angle recently:

Oh, it makes me go back to 1999, when Dianne Feinstein, along with every other Democrat, refused to read my deposition to the independent counsel[.] … They would have nothing to do with it.  That shows you the difference in the double standard that existed back then and still does today.

Broaddrick does not accept the psychobabble being expressed in defense of Ford – her alleged trauma and repressed memory.  Ford is not an infant, despite attempts by Democrats to portray her as wounded, scared, and vulnerable.  She is a professional woman, an accomplished professor in liberal academia, who should be quite able to remember and specifically articulate her allegations against Kavanaugh:

One psychologist told the Post that it “may be challenging to recall peripheral details of an assault years later… but that should not detract from a victim’s veracity ‘if she can clearly and consistently articulate central details of what happened, such as the who, what and where.'”


Broaddrick does not agree.  She told the Daily Caller she doesn’t believe the leftist psychology professor, and for the same reason that some do.  Broaddrick “cited Ford’s timing and lack of firm details in her retelling of the account.” …


Of particular note to Broaddrick – who, unlike Ford, told friends about Clinton’s attack right afterward – was Ford’s inability to remember where the party was or who was there.


When I went through her accounting of what had happened, I cannot imagine not knowing where you were and who was there and when it happened,” she told The DC.  “I remember everything that had happened to me.  Friends found me immediately after the rape and witnessed the condition I was in.  I remember all the specifics, the exact time it happened, 8:30 in the morning.”


Ford said she can’t remember how she got to the party or who drove her home.

Women do lie about sexual assault, and false accusations of rape and sexual assault are not uncommon in a media obsessed with the mythical “war on women” by conservatives like Judge Kavanaugh.  One need only remember the infamous and false Rolling Stone story about an alleged rape at the University of Virginia, the story a key part of the portrayal of an alleged “rape culture” rampant on college campuses.

And then there’s the Duke lacrosse team’s ordeal after being accused of assaulting a stripper at a party, a story pushed by an ambitious prosecutor, Mike Nifong, and a media all too eager to condemn the culture enjoyed by these obvious beneficiaries of “white privilege.”  Three Duke players were falsely accused of assaulting a black girl, and Nifong admitted pursuing the false charges for personal political gain.

We remember what happened to Herman Cain, successful black American businessman and conservative, the Democrats’ worst nightmare.  Out came the accusations against the man who threatened liberal orthodoxy and the liberal power structure, unproven and unprovable allegations of misconduct.  As soon as he abandoned his presidential run, his accusers vanished back into the woodwork from whence they came, their mission accomplished.

Justice may be blind, but it is not brain-dead.  If Ford does not show up to testify and prove her case, a vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination should be held.  And maybe we should just accept Juanita Broaddrick’s offer.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.

Using the hashtag “#DearProfessorFord,” the “sentence first, trial later” accusers of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh have been pouring out tweets expressing sympathy for the ordeal of Professor Christine Blasey Ford, the liberal Democrat activist.

They want an FBI investigation of an individual who won’t talk to the FBI of 36-year-old allegations of a drunken party she doesn’t remember the exact date or location of; how she got there; how she got home; who was there; or why, after she allegedly feared for her life, she didn’t even tell her parents.

No sympathy is expressed for Kavanaugh’s wife and two daughters or where he is going to go to get his reputation back.  How about a “Dear Mrs. Kavanaugh” letter expressing regret to her and her daughters for the slime her husband is being dragged through over charges that are less specific than most sightings of Bigfoot?

Bill Clinton rape accuser Juanita Broaddrick never got a letter expressing sympathy for her ordeal, nor did any of the other “bimbo eruptions” wife Hillary took care of with scathing attacks and organized threats and harassment.  She has an idea: if Ford does not want to testify, Broaddrick is quite willing to show up and tell the Senate Judiciary Committee just what credible charges of assault look like:

Juanita Broaddrick, whose Twitter profile reads, in part, “rape survivor of Bill Clinton,” has been watching the allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh unfold and is surprised by the accuser’s refusal to tell her story.  Christine Blasey Ford, the woman accusing Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her in high school, has yet to accept the invitation to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday.  The committee has even offered her concessions and are [sic] willing to speak to her in her home state of California, but still she has not accepted.


Well, Broaddrick said Wednesday that if Ford is not willing to testify about her allegation, she sure is.

She said in a tweet:

Just a thought… If Christine Ford declines to be interviewed Monday… I’m available to answer questions about my Rape by Bill Clinton.

She is disgusted by the double standard that says women who bring forth assault charges should be immediately deemed credible, a standard that seems to apply only to liberal Democrat women, and noted that Sen. Dianne Feinstein had absolutely no interest in what she had to say about Bill Clinton assaulting her.  As Broaddrick said on The Ingraham Angle recently:

Oh, it makes me go back to 1999, when Dianne Feinstein, along with every other Democrat, refused to read my deposition to the independent counsel[.] … They would have nothing to do with it.  That shows you the difference in the double standard that existed back then and still does today.

Broaddrick does not accept the psychobabble being expressed in defense of Ford – her alleged trauma and repressed memory.  Ford is not an infant, despite attempts by Democrats to portray her as wounded, scared, and vulnerable.  She is a professional woman, an accomplished professor in liberal academia, who should be quite able to remember and specifically articulate her allegations against Kavanaugh:

One psychologist told the Post that it “may be challenging to recall peripheral details of an assault years later… but that should not detract from a victim’s veracity ‘if she can clearly and consistently articulate central details of what happened, such as the who, what and where.'”


Broaddrick does not agree.  She told the Daily Caller she doesn’t believe the leftist psychology professor, and for the same reason that some do.  Broaddrick “cited Ford’s timing and lack of firm details in her retelling of the account.” …


Of particular note to Broaddrick – who, unlike Ford, told friends about Clinton’s attack right afterward – was Ford’s inability to remember where the party was or who was there.


When I went through her accounting of what had happened, I cannot imagine not knowing where you were and who was there and when it happened,” she told The DC.  “I remember everything that had happened to me.  Friends found me immediately after the rape and witnessed the condition I was in.  I remember all the specifics, the exact time it happened, 8:30 in the morning.”


Ford said she can’t remember how she got to the party or who drove her home.

Women do lie about sexual assault, and false accusations of rape and sexual assault are not uncommon in a media obsessed with the mythical “war on women” by conservatives like Judge Kavanaugh.  One need only remember the infamous and false Rolling Stone story about an alleged rape at the University of Virginia, the story a key part of the portrayal of an alleged “rape culture” rampant on college campuses.

And then there’s the Duke lacrosse team’s ordeal after being accused of assaulting a stripper at a party, a story pushed by an ambitious prosecutor, Mike Nifong, and a media all too eager to condemn the culture enjoyed by these obvious beneficiaries of “white privilege.”  Three Duke players were falsely accused of assaulting a black girl, and Nifong admitted pursuing the false charges for personal political gain.

We remember what happened to Herman Cain, successful black American businessman and conservative, the Democrats’ worst nightmare.  Out came the accusations against the man who threatened liberal orthodoxy and the liberal power structure, unproven and unprovable allegations of misconduct.  As soon as he abandoned his presidential run, his accusers vanished back into the woodwork from whence they came, their mission accomplished.

Justice may be blind, but it is not brain-dead.  If Ford does not show up to testify and prove her case, a vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination should be held.  And maybe we should just accept Juanita Broaddrick’s offer.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.



Source link

209198.png

Kavanaugh, Ellison, and the Presumption of Innocence


The Democratic and legacy media mantra that every alleged victim must be deemed credible and heard seems to have one big exception to the rule: it does not apply if you are a Democrat, as evidenced by the reaction of the Democratic National Committee to the credible charges of abuse leveled against Rep. Keith  Ellison, deputy DNC chair and candidate for Minnesota attorney general.

The woman who accused Minnesota Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison of domestic abuse said on Monday that Democrats don’t believe her story and threatened to isolate her over the allegations.


Karen Monahan, a former girlfriend, came forward last month alleging that Ellison sent her threatening text messages and once screamed obscenities at her as he dragged her off a bed by her feet[.] …


Monahan slammed the Democratic Party for its response to her allegations when compared to its treatment of Christine Blasey Ford.  Ford has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of attempting to force himself onto her during at a high school party nearly four decades ago, prompting prominent Democrats to get behind Ford’s allegations.


“No, they don’t,” Monahan tweeted in response to a question whether the party believes women’s stories.  “I’ve been smeared, threatened, isolated from my own party.  I provided medical records from 2017, stating on two different Dr. Visits, I told them about the abuse and who did it.  My therapist released records stating I have been dealing and healing from the abuse.” …


She added: “Four people, including my supervisor at the time, stated that I came to them after and shared the exact story I shared publicly, I shared multiple text [sic] between me and Keith, where I discuss the abuse with him and much more.  As I said before, I knew I wouldn’t be believed.”

Let us be kind and for a fleeting moment say the DNC was giving Keith Ellison the presumption of innocence and granting him the right to confront his accuser, things that are being denied Judge Kavanaugh.  Okay, that moment has passed.  Compare Karen Monahan’s specific charges and actions to Christine Blasey Ford’s 36-year-old recovered memory, which fails to include little details like just when Kavanaugh’s assault occurred, just where it occurred, how she got there, and just who was in the room at the time.

A  mid-August news report details another credible charge against Ellison:

This is the second time Ellison has been publicly accused of domestic violence.  Another woman, Amy Louise Alexander, spoke out in 2006, going public with her account that Ellison verbally abused her while they were having an affair.  She also said he grabbed and pushed her during an argument.

When it comes to Democrats, the so-called #MeToo movement becomes a #MeNeither movement, dismissing out of hand any accusations against a Democrat.  Again, in the second incident, we have documentation in the form of a 911 call:

Amy Alexander claimed that Ellison had abused her during a 2005 relationship in a 2006 article published in The Wright County Republican and blogger Laura Loomer uncovered documentation of a 911 call.


Alexander said in the article that she began seeing Ellison in 1993, while he was still married, and that the relationship eventually went downhill, which prompted her to move out of state.


They would cross paths again in 2004, but the relationship came to a quick end in May 2005 – that’s when Alexander said Ellison showed up at her house uninvited and assaulted her.


“In May, Keith wanted to try and quiet me so he came to my home uninvited,” wrote Alexander.  “We had words.  His anger kicked in.  He berated me.  He grabbed me and pushed me out of the way.  I was terrified.  I called the police.  As he fled he broke my screen door.  I have never been so scared.”


As Loomer noted, the caller’s name on the 911 report has been redacted, but she said a records search under the name of “Amy Alexander” shows that “Alexander lived at the address on the report: 1403 Washington St NE, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Ellison gets a break where Kavanaugh is guilty until proven innocent largely because Kavanaugh is an originalist who would interpret the Constitution as written according to the intentions of those who wrote it in the context of the times in which it was written.  His accuser’s famous 2012 therapy occurred just as it appeared that Mitt Romney might win and likely appoint Kavanaugh himself.  That didn’t happen, and Christine Blasey Ford went back into hibernation – as Peter Strzok might put it, an “insurance policy.”

Ellison, by contrast, is the poster child of the radical progressive left.  His sins may be forgiven because he is right on their issues, such as his support for cop-killers.  As Professor Alan Dershowitz notes, Ellison is a virulent anti-Semite who freely associates with the race-baiting Al Sharpton and unhinged Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan:

Ellison has a long history of sordid association with anti-Semitism.  He worked with and repeatedly defended one of a handful of the most notorious and public anti-Semites in our country: The Reverend Louis Farrakhan.  And worked with Farrakhan at the very time this anti-Semite was publicly describing Judaism as a “gutter religion” and insisting that the Jews were a primary force in the African slave trade.  Ellison has publicly stated that he was unaware of Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism.  That is not a credible statement.  Everyone was aware of Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism.  Farrakhan did not try to hide it.  Indeed, he proclaimed it on every occasion.  Ellison is either lying or he willfully blinded himself to what was obvious to everyone else.  Neither of these qualities makes him suitable to be the next chairman of the DNC.

Ellison has deep ties with the Muslim Brotherhood.  As the watchdog group Jihad Watch reports:

Ellison has spoken at a convention of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).  Yet ISNA has actually admitted its ties to Hamas, which styles itself the Palestinian arm of the Muslim Brotherhood.  The Justice Department actually classified ISNA among entities “who are and/or were members of the US Muslim Brotherhood.”  It gets worse.  In 2008, Ellison accepted $13,350 from the Muslim American Society (MAS) to go on a pilgrimage to Mecca.  The Muslim American Society is a Muslim Brotherhood organization: “In recent years, the U.S. Brotherhood operated under the name Muslim American Society, according to documents and interviews.  One of the nation’s major Islamic groups, it was incorporated in Illinois in 1993 after a contentious debate among Brotherhood members.”  That’s from the Chicago Tribune in 2004, in an article that is now carried on the Muslim Brotherhood’s English-language website, Ikhwanweb.  Also, the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) raised large amounts of for Ellison’s first campaign, and he has spoken at numerous CAIR events.  Yet CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case – so named by the Justice Department.  CAIR officials have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups.

So the Democrats would have us believe that Brett Kavanaugh, who has a impeccable conservative judicial record, a judge with a wife and two kids who coaches a girls’ basketball team, is a closet sexual predator, while Keith Ellison, a far-left serial abuser, should be the next attorney general of Minnesota, interpreting and enforcing its laws from a sharia law perspective.  It does indeed depend on whose political ox is being gored.

The Democratic and legacy media mantra that every alleged victim must be deemed credible and heard seems to have one big exception to the rule: it does not apply if you are a Democrat, as evidenced by the reaction of the Democratic National Committee to the credible charges of abuse leveled against Rep. Keith  Ellison, deputy DNC chair and candidate for Minnesota attorney general.

The woman who accused Minnesota Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison of domestic abuse said on Monday that Democrats don’t believe her story and threatened to isolate her over the allegations.


Karen Monahan, a former girlfriend, came forward last month alleging that Ellison sent her threatening text messages and once screamed obscenities at her as he dragged her off a bed by her feet[.] …


Monahan slammed the Democratic Party for its response to her allegations when compared to its treatment of Christine Blasey Ford.  Ford has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of attempting to force himself onto her during at a high school party nearly four decades ago, prompting prominent Democrats to get behind Ford’s allegations.


“No, they don’t,” Monahan tweeted in response to a question whether the party believes women’s stories.  “I’ve been smeared, threatened, isolated from my own party.  I provided medical records from 2017, stating on two different Dr. Visits, I told them about the abuse and who did it.  My therapist released records stating I have been dealing and healing from the abuse.” …


She added: “Four people, including my supervisor at the time, stated that I came to them after and shared the exact story I shared publicly, I shared multiple text [sic] between me and Keith, where I discuss the abuse with him and much more.  As I said before, I knew I wouldn’t be believed.”

Let us be kind and for a fleeting moment say the DNC was giving Keith Ellison the presumption of innocence and granting him the right to confront his accuser, things that are being denied Judge Kavanaugh.  Okay, that moment has passed.  Compare Karen Monahan’s specific charges and actions to Christine Blasey Ford’s 36-year-old recovered memory, which fails to include little details like just when Kavanaugh’s assault occurred, just where it occurred, how she got there, and just who was in the room at the time.

A  mid-August news report details another credible charge against Ellison:

This is the second time Ellison has been publicly accused of domestic violence.  Another woman, Amy Louise Alexander, spoke out in 2006, going public with her account that Ellison verbally abused her while they were having an affair.  She also said he grabbed and pushed her during an argument.

When it comes to Democrats, the so-called #MeToo movement becomes a #MeNeither movement, dismissing out of hand any accusations against a Democrat.  Again, in the second incident, we have documentation in the form of a 911 call:

Amy Alexander claimed that Ellison had abused her during a 2005 relationship in a 2006 article published in The Wright County Republican and blogger Laura Loomer uncovered documentation of a 911 call.


Alexander said in the article that she began seeing Ellison in 1993, while he was still married, and that the relationship eventually went downhill, which prompted her to move out of state.


They would cross paths again in 2004, but the relationship came to a quick end in May 2005 – that’s when Alexander said Ellison showed up at her house uninvited and assaulted her.


“In May, Keith wanted to try and quiet me so he came to my home uninvited,” wrote Alexander.  “We had words.  His anger kicked in.  He berated me.  He grabbed me and pushed me out of the way.  I was terrified.  I called the police.  As he fled he broke my screen door.  I have never been so scared.”


As Loomer noted, the caller’s name on the 911 report has been redacted, but she said a records search under the name of “Amy Alexander” shows that “Alexander lived at the address on the report: 1403 Washington St NE, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Ellison gets a break where Kavanaugh is guilty until proven innocent largely because Kavanaugh is an originalist who would interpret the Constitution as written according to the intentions of those who wrote it in the context of the times in which it was written.  His accuser’s famous 2012 therapy occurred just as it appeared that Mitt Romney might win and likely appoint Kavanaugh himself.  That didn’t happen, and Christine Blasey Ford went back into hibernation – as Peter Strzok might put it, an “insurance policy.”

Ellison, by contrast, is the poster child of the radical progressive left.  His sins may be forgiven because he is right on their issues, such as his support for cop-killers.  As Professor Alan Dershowitz notes, Ellison is a virulent anti-Semite who freely associates with the race-baiting Al Sharpton and unhinged Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan:

Ellison has a long history of sordid association with anti-Semitism.  He worked with and repeatedly defended one of a handful of the most notorious and public anti-Semites in our country: The Reverend Louis Farrakhan.  And worked with Farrakhan at the very time this anti-Semite was publicly describing Judaism as a “gutter religion” and insisting that the Jews were a primary force in the African slave trade.  Ellison has publicly stated that he was unaware of Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism.  That is not a credible statement.  Everyone was aware of Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism.  Farrakhan did not try to hide it.  Indeed, he proclaimed it on every occasion.  Ellison is either lying or he willfully blinded himself to what was obvious to everyone else.  Neither of these qualities makes him suitable to be the next chairman of the DNC.

Ellison has deep ties with the Muslim Brotherhood.  As the watchdog group Jihad Watch reports:

Ellison has spoken at a convention of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).  Yet ISNA has actually admitted its ties to Hamas, which styles itself the Palestinian arm of the Muslim Brotherhood.  The Justice Department actually classified ISNA among entities “who are and/or were members of the US Muslim Brotherhood.”  It gets worse.  In 2008, Ellison accepted $13,350 from the Muslim American Society (MAS) to go on a pilgrimage to Mecca.  The Muslim American Society is a Muslim Brotherhood organization: “In recent years, the U.S. Brotherhood operated under the name Muslim American Society, according to documents and interviews.  One of the nation’s major Islamic groups, it was incorporated in Illinois in 1993 after a contentious debate among Brotherhood members.”  That’s from the Chicago Tribune in 2004, in an article that is now carried on the Muslim Brotherhood’s English-language website, Ikhwanweb.  Also, the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) raised large amounts of for Ellison’s first campaign, and he has spoken at numerous CAIR events.  Yet CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case – so named by the Justice Department.  CAIR officials have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups.

So the Democrats would have us believe that Brett Kavanaugh, who has a impeccable conservative judicial record, a judge with a wife and two kids who coaches a girls’ basketball team, is a closet sexual predator, while Keith Ellison, a far-left serial abuser, should be the next attorney general of Minnesota, interpreting and enforcing its laws from a sharia law perspective.  It does indeed depend on whose political ox is being gored.



Source link

209153.png

Judge Kavanaugh Meets His Anita Hill


Maybe Sen. Dianne Feinstein had another cold, deciding to release a letter the author requested be kept confidential, a letter accusing Judge Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct in high school.  In what was hardly a “Spartacus moment,” the cowardly Feinstein withheld its existence during public and closed-door testimony, a private meeting, and personal phone calls with Kavanaugh.

After the Democrats prattled on about not having all of Kavanaugh’s documents, here was the self-righteous Feinstein, withholding a document until all else failed to derail Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court.  Liberals insist that all accusers be deemed credible and heard, but they forget about the presumption of innocence and the right of the accused to confront his accuser.  Kavanaugh deserves that right and might yet get it, but in the meantime, we know that for Democrats, the politics of personal destruction is not dead.

And just who is Kavanaugh’s accuser, Christine Blasey Ford?  Let us ask the obvious question that always comes when such accusations are leveled decades after the alleged occurrence when a Republican is nominated for a high post or runs for high office: why now?

As a statement from the Senate Judiciary Committee notes:

“It’s disturbing that these uncorroborated allegations from more than 35 years ago, during high school, would surface on the eve of a committee vote after Democrats sat on them since July.  If Ranking Member Feinstein and other Committee Democrats took this claim seriously, they should have brought it to the full Committee’s attention much earlier.  Instead, they said nothing during two joint phone calls with the nominee in August, four days of lengthy public hearings, a closed session for all committee members with the nominee where sensitive topics can be discussed and in more than 1,300 written questions,” Grassley’s office released in a statement Sunday afternoon.  “Sixty-five senators met individually with Judge Kavanaugh during a nearly two-month period before the hearing began, yet Feinstein didn’t share this with her colleagues ahead of many of those discussions.

We also know she is a liberal activist, a college professor whose political views are seemingly at odds with Kavanaugh’s originalist interpretation of the Constitution:

Ford is a registered Democrat who has given small monetary donations to political causes, according to The Washington Post.


She has donated to ActBlue, a nonprofit group that aims to help Democrats and progressive candidates, The Wall Street Journal reported.


She is also among the thousands of medical professionals who signed onto a Physicians for Human Rights letter in June decrying the practice of separating children from their parents at the border and urging the Trump administration to stop it.

We do know that when Mitt Romney looked like a shot at winning in 2012, Blasey was being held in reserve amidst speculation that Kavanaugh was likely to be Romney’s first SCOTUS pick:

In 2012, Romney ran against Obama.  Up until his 47% gaffe, Romney was doing well.  He actually had a shot of winning.  For the Democrats, as has been the case since Bork, having a Republican in the White House, especially with the ever-aging but never retiring Ruth Bader Ginsburg a perpetual risk, raised the specter of a conservative judge getting appointed to the Supreme Court.  With that in mind, one Twitter user, who must have an amazing memory, remembered something interesting he’d read back in 2012:


March 2012, the left was preparing for a possible Romney win. They assessed that Kavanaugh would be his Supreme Court pick and this accusation was ready to go. Then Obama won so the story died. Now its reemerged. Read last few lines of this 2012 article.


– Stonewall Jackson (@1776Stonewall) September 16, 2018

Her alleged trauma does not jibe with her persistent reticence, whose end seemed politically timed to any possible Kavanaugh nomination to the Supreme Court.  Otherwise, she was quite fine with alleged teenage predator Kavanaugh spending twelve years on the federal bench, deciding public policy and influencing the course of individual lives and the nation as a whole:

Russell Ford, her husband, also told The Washington Post that his wife detailed the alleged assault during a couple’s therapy session in 2012.  During therapy, he said his wife talked about a time when she was trapped in a room with two drunken boys, and one of them had pinned her to a bed, molested her and tried to prevent her from screaming.

He said he remembered his wife specifically using Kavanaugh’s name.  She said during the session, Russell Ford recalled, she was scared he would one day be nominated to the Supreme Court.

Yet she kept quiet as Kavanaugh was appointed to the federal bench, got married, raised two daughters, and coached their basketball team.  Timing is everything in politics, and it is painfully obviously how well timed this resurrected memory was.

Parallels to the last-minute defamation of Justice Clarence Thomas by Anita Hill during his Supreme Court confirmation hearing are clear:

The 27-year-old “Anita Hill” strategy of digging for dirt on a Supreme Court nominee didn’t work with Clarence Thomas back in 1991.  But desperate times for liberals call for desperate measures.


Just as with Anita Hill, no doubt it took a concentrated effort of importuning by a host of liberal Senate staffers and interest-group partisans to wrest from another college professor a last-minute allegation of sexual misbehavior designed to sink a Supreme Court appointment at the eleventh hour[.] …


At the time, Kavanaugh and Mark Judge, the friend she alleges was with him, were both students at Georgetown Preparatory School.


Judge told The Weekly Standard last week that the allegation against Kavanaugh is “just absolutely nuts.”  A total of 65 women who knew the judge in high school sent a letter to the Senate last Friday stating, “He has always treated women with decency and respect.”


As Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley pointed out, “Judge Kavanaugh’s background has been thoroughly vetted by the FBI on six different occasions throughout his decades of public service, and no such allegation ever surfaced.”  Perhaps also of note is that Ford seems to have airbrushed all politics out of her online profile, including her professional bio on LinkedIn, though according to public records she has made small contributions to the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Friends of Bernie Sanders[.] …


Regardless of the validity of the accusation, the timing on it is straight out of Anita Hill.  The woman is said to have approached Senate Democrats in July, but two months later, in the public hearing, Kavanaugh was never asked about the incident, nor did it come up in the 1,278 written follow-up questions he has since answered.

The timing is indeed straight out of Anita Hill.  These charges are reminiscent of the campaign of smear and innuendo leveled at former GOP presidential candidate and successful black American conservative businessman Herman Cain.  Cain’s candidacy derailed after repeated and unproven sexual harassment allegations by former employees.  Like Harry Reid’s tax lies about Mitt Romney, the strategy worked.

Liberal accusations against Republicans are accepted as credible immediately.  Smear first, prove later.  Guilty until proven innocent.  To various extents, it worked with Romney and Cain.  Why not Judge Brett Kavanaugh?

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.

Maybe Sen. Dianne Feinstein had another cold, deciding to release a letter the author requested be kept confidential, a letter accusing Judge Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct in high school.  In what was hardly a “Spartacus moment,” the cowardly Feinstein withheld its existence during public and closed-door testimony, a private meeting, and personal phone calls with Kavanaugh.

After the Democrats prattled on about not having all of Kavanaugh’s documents, here was the self-righteous Feinstein, withholding a document until all else failed to derail Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court.  Liberals insist that all accusers be deemed credible and heard, but they forget about the presumption of innocence and the right of the accused to confront his accuser.  Kavanaugh deserves that right and might yet get it, but in the meantime, we know that for Democrats, the politics of personal destruction is not dead.

And just who is Kavanaugh’s accuser, Christine Blasey Ford?  Let us ask the obvious question that always comes when such accusations are leveled decades after the alleged occurrence when a Republican is nominated for a high post or runs for high office: why now?

As a statement from the Senate Judiciary Committee notes:

“It’s disturbing that these uncorroborated allegations from more than 35 years ago, during high school, would surface on the eve of a committee vote after Democrats sat on them since July.  If Ranking Member Feinstein and other Committee Democrats took this claim seriously, they should have brought it to the full Committee’s attention much earlier.  Instead, they said nothing during two joint phone calls with the nominee in August, four days of lengthy public hearings, a closed session for all committee members with the nominee where sensitive topics can be discussed and in more than 1,300 written questions,” Grassley’s office released in a statement Sunday afternoon.  “Sixty-five senators met individually with Judge Kavanaugh during a nearly two-month period before the hearing began, yet Feinstein didn’t share this with her colleagues ahead of many of those discussions.

We also know she is a liberal activist, a college professor whose political views are seemingly at odds with Kavanaugh’s originalist interpretation of the Constitution:

Ford is a registered Democrat who has given small monetary donations to political causes, according to The Washington Post.


She has donated to ActBlue, a nonprofit group that aims to help Democrats and progressive candidates, The Wall Street Journal reported.


She is also among the thousands of medical professionals who signed onto a Physicians for Human Rights letter in June decrying the practice of separating children from their parents at the border and urging the Trump administration to stop it.

We do know that when Mitt Romney looked like a shot at winning in 2012, Blasey was being held in reserve amidst speculation that Kavanaugh was likely to be Romney’s first SCOTUS pick:

In 2012, Romney ran against Obama.  Up until his 47% gaffe, Romney was doing well.  He actually had a shot of winning.  For the Democrats, as has been the case since Bork, having a Republican in the White House, especially with the ever-aging but never retiring Ruth Bader Ginsburg a perpetual risk, raised the specter of a conservative judge getting appointed to the Supreme Court.  With that in mind, one Twitter user, who must have an amazing memory, remembered something interesting he’d read back in 2012:


March 2012, the left was preparing for a possible Romney win. They assessed that Kavanaugh would be his Supreme Court pick and this accusation was ready to go. Then Obama won so the story died. Now its reemerged. Read last few lines of this 2012 article.


– Stonewall Jackson (@1776Stonewall) September 16, 2018

Her alleged trauma does not jibe with her persistent reticence, whose end seemed politically timed to any possible Kavanaugh nomination to the Supreme Court.  Otherwise, she was quite fine with alleged teenage predator Kavanaugh spending twelve years on the federal bench, deciding public policy and influencing the course of individual lives and the nation as a whole:

Russell Ford, her husband, also told The Washington Post that his wife detailed the alleged assault during a couple’s therapy session in 2012.  During therapy, he said his wife talked about a time when she was trapped in a room with two drunken boys, and one of them had pinned her to a bed, molested her and tried to prevent her from screaming.

He said he remembered his wife specifically using Kavanaugh’s name.  She said during the session, Russell Ford recalled, she was scared he would one day be nominated to the Supreme Court.

Yet she kept quiet as Kavanaugh was appointed to the federal bench, got married, raised two daughters, and coached their basketball team.  Timing is everything in politics, and it is painfully obviously how well timed this resurrected memory was.

Parallels to the last-minute defamation of Justice Clarence Thomas by Anita Hill during his Supreme Court confirmation hearing are clear:

The 27-year-old “Anita Hill” strategy of digging for dirt on a Supreme Court nominee didn’t work with Clarence Thomas back in 1991.  But desperate times for liberals call for desperate measures.


Just as with Anita Hill, no doubt it took a concentrated effort of importuning by a host of liberal Senate staffers and interest-group partisans to wrest from another college professor a last-minute allegation of sexual misbehavior designed to sink a Supreme Court appointment at the eleventh hour[.] …


At the time, Kavanaugh and Mark Judge, the friend she alleges was with him, were both students at Georgetown Preparatory School.


Judge told The Weekly Standard last week that the allegation against Kavanaugh is “just absolutely nuts.”  A total of 65 women who knew the judge in high school sent a letter to the Senate last Friday stating, “He has always treated women with decency and respect.”


As Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley pointed out, “Judge Kavanaugh’s background has been thoroughly vetted by the FBI on six different occasions throughout his decades of public service, and no such allegation ever surfaced.”  Perhaps also of note is that Ford seems to have airbrushed all politics out of her online profile, including her professional bio on LinkedIn, though according to public records she has made small contributions to the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Friends of Bernie Sanders[.] …


Regardless of the validity of the accusation, the timing on it is straight out of Anita Hill.  The woman is said to have approached Senate Democrats in July, but two months later, in the public hearing, Kavanaugh was never asked about the incident, nor did it come up in the 1,278 written follow-up questions he has since answered.

The timing is indeed straight out of Anita Hill.  These charges are reminiscent of the campaign of smear and innuendo leveled at former GOP presidential candidate and successful black American conservative businessman Herman Cain.  Cain’s candidacy derailed after repeated and unproven sexual harassment allegations by former employees.  Like Harry Reid’s tax lies about Mitt Romney, the strategy worked.

Liberal accusations against Republicans are accepted as credible immediately.  Smear first, prove later.  Guilty until proven innocent.  To various extents, it worked with Romney and Cain.  Why not Judge Brett Kavanaugh?

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.



Source link

209100.png

Trump and Birthright Citizenship


I once supported Ted Cruz over Donald Trump in the primaries, largely due to the fact that Trump seemed a bull who carried around his own china shop and campaigned like Sherman marching through Atlanta with matches.  But he won me over, and I repented my political sins and saw the method in his madness as he overturned the tables at which the elitist moneychangers sat along with the status quo they cherished.

He has unleashed America’s entrepreneurs, cut all our taxes, chopped off the strangling regulatory tentacles of big government, liberated American energy, rebuilt the military, ended “free” trade transfers of wealth to those who are not all our friends, fundamentally transformed the judiciary, and dared to step on the new third rail of American politics: illegal immigration and sanctuary cities.

Sadly, some persist in their unbelief, most notably the #NeverTrumps over at the increasingly irrelevant National Review, who have published a piece taking the absurd position that the concept of birthright citizenship is not only constitutional, but an integral part of any originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution:

The conservative beltway publication National Review published a piece in which their legal columnist argues that “constitutional originalism requires” that United States citizenship be given to the children of illegal aliens.


Dan McLaughlin of National Review – which infamously launched a campaign against President Trump during the 2016 presidential election – published the piece, titled “Constitutional Originalism Requires Birthright Citizenship,” which claims that the U.S. Constitution does provide birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens[.] …


Dan McLaughlin writes for National Review:


Among the ideas that percolate now and then on the Right is the idea of reforming or eliminating birthright citizenship, the policy by which anyone born on American soil automatically becomes a natural-born citizen.  From a policy perspective, there is fair grounds [sic] for debate: there are reasonable objections to the abuse of birthright citizenship, but also serious problems of principle and practice with changing it.  But from a legal perspective, the answer should be clear: a proper originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, as presently written, guarantees American citizenship to those born within our borders, with only a few limited exceptions. [Emphasis added by Breitbart] …


The Supreme Court, however, has never explicitly ruled that the children of illegal aliens must be granted automatic citizenship and many legal scholars dispute the idea.

The Supreme Court has indeed not said birthright citizenship is constitutional, and legal scholars have noted that supporters of birthright citizenship, a gross misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, ignore the intentions of those who wrote that amendment.  So much for an originalist interpretation.

Peter H. Schuck, Yale University’s Simeon E. Baldwin professor of law emeritus and self-described “militant moderate,” reiterated his opinion Monday that birthright citizenship is not required by the U.S. Constitution.  Though opposed to many of the president’s positions, he was surprised the administration has not made opposition to citizenship for the children of illegal aliens more central to its immigration policy.

On at least one key immigration stance, however, Schuck appears to be in agreement with President Trump.  In the 1990s, along with Yale Political Scientist Rogers Smith, he determined, in a book called Citizenship Without Consent, that the policy of granting citizenship to everyone born on American soil, including so-called “anchor-babies” – those born to illegal alliens [sic] – was not mandated by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as is popularly trumpeted by open-borders supporters.  Trump came to the same conclusion on the campaign trail, once stating, “We’re the only ones dumb enough, stupid enough to have it.”

This misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, written to guarantee the citizenship rights of freed slaves after the Civil War, has morphed the amendment into a guarantee of birthright citizenship.  Merely being born on American soil is said to make you a U.S. citizen.  Sneak past the U.S. Border Patrol; have your baby; and you not only have a U.S. citizen, but what is called an “anchor baby,” allowing you to stay and bring others in under the banner of family reunification.

During the campaign, Trump correctly called the flawed concept of birthright citizenship the “biggest magnet” for illegal immigration.  He would end it, and as for family reunification, Trump is all for it, just saying it should happen on the other side of the U.S.-Mexico border.  As the New York Post reported:

Trump described his expanded vision of how to secure American borders during a wide-ranging interview Sunday on NBC’s “Meet The Press,” and in a position paper he later released, saying that he would push to end the constitutionally protected citizenship rights of children of any family living illegally inside the US.


“They have to go,” Trump said.  “What they’re doing, they’re having a baby.  And then all of a sudden, nobody knows… the baby’s here.”

Birthright citizenship is the exception and not the rule worldwide.  Even our European brethren, as fond as they are of refugees and open borders, do not embrace it.  As Liz Peek writes on FoxNews.com, birthright citizenship is indeed a big magnet for illegal immigration:

The United States is one of only two developed countries in the world that still bestows citizenship on every person born on our nation’s soil.  Having a child become a U.S. citizen is the greatest reward possible for someone who enters the country illegally.  Such status is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in free education and benefits, not to mention the incalculable value of our country’s security and freedoms.  Historically, there was bipartisan enthusiasm for dumping this program; even Democrat Harry Reid had proposed its termination.

The costs of birthright citizenship are staggering, especially when you consider the costs of what is called “chain migration.”  Once of age, the baby born here can sponsor others.  It has even given rise to what is called “birth tourism,” where pregnant women are brought to the United States, ostensibly as tourists, to give birth here and have their children deemed American citizens by birth. 

Trump said he would end birthright citizenship.  Critics have said the task, even if justified, is well nigh impossible, requiring amending the U.S. Constitution.  In reality, it may not require altering the 14th Amendment – only correctly interpreting it, perhaps through clarifying legislation.

The Fourteenth Amendment, passed on July 3, 1866, reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”  This was done, again, to guarantee the citizenship rights of freed slaves, not illegal aliens.  The 1857 Dred Scott decision held that no black, not even a freed black, could be considered a citizen.

In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee in October 2008, John C. Eastman, a law professor at Chapman University and a fellow at the Claremont Institute, argued that illegal aliens are still foreign nationals and are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, except for purposes of deportation, therefore their children born on American soil should not be automatically considered U.S. citizens.

During debate on the Fourteenth Amendment, Sen. Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan added jurisdiction language specifically to avoid accident of birth being the sole criterion for citizenship.  And if citizenship is determined just by place of birth, why did it take an act of Congress in 1922 to give American Indians birthright citizenship, if they already had citizenship by birthright under the 14th Amendment?        

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, regarded as the father of the 14th Amendment, said it meant that “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your constitution itself, a natural born citizen[.]”

Rep. Nathan Deal of Georgia sought to clarify the situation through H.R. 698, the Citizenship Reform Act of 2005, which would have amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to deny automatic citizenship to children born of the United States of parents who are not U.S. citizens or are not permanent resident aliens.

H.R. 698 declared: “It is the purpose of this Act to deny automatic citizenship at birth to children born in the United States to parents who are not citizens or permanent resident aliens.”  The bill undertook to clarify “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” to the meaning originally intended by Congress in the 14th Amendment.

The current interpretation of birthright citizenship may in fact have been a huge mistake given the burden illegal aliens have imposed on our welfare, educational, and health care systems, as well as, through increased crime, on our legal system – a very costly one. 

There may be hope of correctly interpreting the 14th Amendment through a court case as President Trump reshapes the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, with justices of a more “originalist” bent.  As noted, the misinterpretation could be corrected through clarifying legislation.  We can correct it judicially or legislatively, and we should.  Donald Trump was right: becoming a U.S. citizen should require more than your mother successfully sneaking past the U.S. Border Patrol.

I once supported Ted Cruz over Donald Trump in the primaries, largely due to the fact that Trump seemed a bull who carried around his own china shop and campaigned like Sherman marching through Atlanta with matches.  But he won me over, and I repented my political sins and saw the method in his madness as he overturned the tables at which the elitist moneychangers sat along with the status quo they cherished.

He has unleashed America’s entrepreneurs, cut all our taxes, chopped off the strangling regulatory tentacles of big government, liberated American energy, rebuilt the military, ended “free” trade transfers of wealth to those who are not all our friends, fundamentally transformed the judiciary, and dared to step on the new third rail of American politics: illegal immigration and sanctuary cities.

Sadly, some persist in their unbelief, most notably the #NeverTrumps over at the increasingly irrelevant National Review, who have published a piece taking the absurd position that the concept of birthright citizenship is not only constitutional, but an integral part of any originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution:

The conservative beltway publication National Review published a piece in which their legal columnist argues that “constitutional originalism requires” that United States citizenship be given to the children of illegal aliens.


Dan McLaughlin of National Review – which infamously launched a campaign against President Trump during the 2016 presidential election – published the piece, titled “Constitutional Originalism Requires Birthright Citizenship,” which claims that the U.S. Constitution does provide birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens[.] …


Dan McLaughlin writes for National Review:


Among the ideas that percolate now and then on the Right is the idea of reforming or eliminating birthright citizenship, the policy by which anyone born on American soil automatically becomes a natural-born citizen.  From a policy perspective, there is fair grounds [sic] for debate: there are reasonable objections to the abuse of birthright citizenship, but also serious problems of principle and practice with changing it.  But from a legal perspective, the answer should be clear: a proper originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, as presently written, guarantees American citizenship to those born within our borders, with only a few limited exceptions. [Emphasis added by Breitbart] …


The Supreme Court, however, has never explicitly ruled that the children of illegal aliens must be granted automatic citizenship and many legal scholars dispute the idea.

The Supreme Court has indeed not said birthright citizenship is constitutional, and legal scholars have noted that supporters of birthright citizenship, a gross misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, ignore the intentions of those who wrote that amendment.  So much for an originalist interpretation.

Peter H. Schuck, Yale University’s Simeon E. Baldwin professor of law emeritus and self-described “militant moderate,” reiterated his opinion Monday that birthright citizenship is not required by the U.S. Constitution.  Though opposed to many of the president’s positions, he was surprised the administration has not made opposition to citizenship for the children of illegal aliens more central to its immigration policy.

On at least one key immigration stance, however, Schuck appears to be in agreement with President Trump.  In the 1990s, along with Yale Political Scientist Rogers Smith, he determined, in a book called Citizenship Without Consent, that the policy of granting citizenship to everyone born on American soil, including so-called “anchor-babies” – those born to illegal alliens [sic] – was not mandated by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as is popularly trumpeted by open-borders supporters.  Trump came to the same conclusion on the campaign trail, once stating, “We’re the only ones dumb enough, stupid enough to have it.”

This misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, written to guarantee the citizenship rights of freed slaves after the Civil War, has morphed the amendment into a guarantee of birthright citizenship.  Merely being born on American soil is said to make you a U.S. citizen.  Sneak past the U.S. Border Patrol; have your baby; and you not only have a U.S. citizen, but what is called an “anchor baby,” allowing you to stay and bring others in under the banner of family reunification.

During the campaign, Trump correctly called the flawed concept of birthright citizenship the “biggest magnet” for illegal immigration.  He would end it, and as for family reunification, Trump is all for it, just saying it should happen on the other side of the U.S.-Mexico border.  As the New York Post reported:

Trump described his expanded vision of how to secure American borders during a wide-ranging interview Sunday on NBC’s “Meet The Press,” and in a position paper he later released, saying that he would push to end the constitutionally protected citizenship rights of children of any family living illegally inside the US.


“They have to go,” Trump said.  “What they’re doing, they’re having a baby.  And then all of a sudden, nobody knows… the baby’s here.”

Birthright citizenship is the exception and not the rule worldwide.  Even our European brethren, as fond as they are of refugees and open borders, do not embrace it.  As Liz Peek writes on FoxNews.com, birthright citizenship is indeed a big magnet for illegal immigration:

The United States is one of only two developed countries in the world that still bestows citizenship on every person born on our nation’s soil.  Having a child become a U.S. citizen is the greatest reward possible for someone who enters the country illegally.  Such status is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in free education and benefits, not to mention the incalculable value of our country’s security and freedoms.  Historically, there was bipartisan enthusiasm for dumping this program; even Democrat Harry Reid had proposed its termination.

The costs of birthright citizenship are staggering, especially when you consider the costs of what is called “chain migration.”  Once of age, the baby born here can sponsor others.  It has even given rise to what is called “birth tourism,” where pregnant women are brought to the United States, ostensibly as tourists, to give birth here and have their children deemed American citizens by birth. 

Trump said he would end birthright citizenship.  Critics have said the task, even if justified, is well nigh impossible, requiring amending the U.S. Constitution.  In reality, it may not require altering the 14th Amendment – only correctly interpreting it, perhaps through clarifying legislation.

The Fourteenth Amendment, passed on July 3, 1866, reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”  This was done, again, to guarantee the citizenship rights of freed slaves, not illegal aliens.  The 1857 Dred Scott decision held that no black, not even a freed black, could be considered a citizen.

In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee in October 2008, John C. Eastman, a law professor at Chapman University and a fellow at the Claremont Institute, argued that illegal aliens are still foreign nationals and are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, except for purposes of deportation, therefore their children born on American soil should not be automatically considered U.S. citizens.

During debate on the Fourteenth Amendment, Sen. Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan added jurisdiction language specifically to avoid accident of birth being the sole criterion for citizenship.  And if citizenship is determined just by place of birth, why did it take an act of Congress in 1922 to give American Indians birthright citizenship, if they already had citizenship by birthright under the 14th Amendment?        

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, regarded as the father of the 14th Amendment, said it meant that “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your constitution itself, a natural born citizen[.]”

Rep. Nathan Deal of Georgia sought to clarify the situation through H.R. 698, the Citizenship Reform Act of 2005, which would have amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to deny automatic citizenship to children born of the United States of parents who are not U.S. citizens or are not permanent resident aliens.

H.R. 698 declared: “It is the purpose of this Act to deny automatic citizenship at birth to children born in the United States to parents who are not citizens or permanent resident aliens.”  The bill undertook to clarify “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” to the meaning originally intended by Congress in the 14th Amendment.

The current interpretation of birthright citizenship may in fact have been a huge mistake given the burden illegal aliens have imposed on our welfare, educational, and health care systems, as well as, through increased crime, on our legal system – a very costly one. 

There may be hope of correctly interpreting the 14th Amendment through a court case as President Trump reshapes the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, with justices of a more “originalist” bent.  As noted, the misinterpretation could be corrected through clarifying legislation.  We can correct it judicially or legislatively, and we should.  Donald Trump was right: becoming a U.S. citizen should require more than your mother successfully sneaking past the U.S. Border Patrol.



Source link

209011.png

Obama vs. the Nation


Transference is a psychiatric term for the ability to take your faults and ascribe them to others.  In the dictionary next to the definition should be a photo of former President Barack Obama, particularly the section in his September 7 University of Illinois speech where he attacked President Trump for fomenting paranoia and division:

In a moment reminiscent of Hillary Clinton’s outrageous characterization of Trump voters as “deplorable” and “irredeemable,” President Obama said: “I have to say this… Over the past few decades, the politics of division and resentment and paranoia has unfortunately found a home in the Republican Party.”


Labeling the 63 million Trump voters as “deplorable” and “irredeemable” didn’t work out for Hillary Clinton when she ran a failed presidential campaign against Trump in 2016.  Labeling the same voters as divisive, resentful and paranoid will not work for Democrats in the November midterm elections.

No, it will not, and the remarks by this poster child for self-serving hypocrisy and delusion go a long way toward explaining how Obama shrank the Democratic Party by a thousand state, local, and federal legislative seats during his eight years in office.  Once again, to use President Obama’s own phrase, he “acted stupidly.”

That was the remark President Obama would fire towards the Cambridge, Massachusetts police who arrested black Harvard professor Harry Louis Gates, Jr. at his home for disorderly conduct:

President Obama knocked back some cold beer in the Rose Garden with Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and police Sgt. James Crowley of Cambridge, Mass., the two men at the heart last week of a heated debate over race in America[.] …


The dispute began July 16 when Crowley, while investigating a report of a potential burglary at Gates’ house, arrested the agitated professor on a charge of disorderly conduct.  Gates, who is black, accused the white sergeant of racial profiling.  The disorderly conduct charge was dropped – but the dispute exploded into a national debate, particularly after Obama said the police had “acted stupidly” in arresting Gates.

Remember Obama’s beer summit, held to talk about how the Cambridge Police acted against the offended black professor Gates?  And then, afterward, who helped Gates down the steps?  The “racist cop,” of course.  Obama couldn’t be bothered to make sure his friend got down the steps.

From Ferguson to Baltimore and beyond, President Obama’s words aiding and abetting the war on cops and inciting racial division have been the equivalent of yelling “fire” in a crowded theater.  He has encouraged a false narrative of racist cops and racist police departments whose officers are guilty until proven innocent, or buried, whichever comes first.  Never mind that in both Baltimore and Ferguson, the cops accused of racism and murder were found guilty of neither.

It was Ferguson, Missouri, where President Obama’s Justice Department sent forty FBI agents to prove that Officer Darren Wilson was a racist murder of an innocent black teen. He made the race-baiting Al Sharpton, who helped create the myth of “hands up, don’t shoot,” a key adviser on race matters and Ferguson.

In December 2014, President Obama stoked the fires of animus against cops when he said on BET that police were judging blacks, not on the content of their character, but on the color of their skin:

President Barack Obama made an appearance on Black Entertainment Television (BET) Monday to reach out to black Americans and discuss calls for criminal justice reform after two grand jury decisions cleared white police officers in the deaths of two black men.  The president has to carefully express his concern for the safety of African-Americans while not undermining the law enforcement community.  President Obama suggested that the issue of police vs. minorities is deeply rooted in American culture and is the result of police having a “subconscious fear of folks who look different.”

That is a common theme for the divisive Obama, one he now applies to illegal immigration and border reform, saying those who don’t like illegal aliens entering the U.S. to murder our children, like Kate Steinle and Mollie Tibbetts, or oppose sanctuary cities that harbor illegal alien criminals or believe that the rape, torture, and murder gang known as MS-13 aren’t here seeking a better life, are racists.

The alleged fear by conservatives of others not like them was a key part of the famous “bitter clingers” remark made during the 2008 campaign:

Barack Obama had not yet locked up the nomination for his party when he revealed his true feelings about gun owners to attendees of a private fund raiser in San Francisco last April:


You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them.  And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.  And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

In Obama’s world, Islam is a religion of tolerance – not so much of Christians, also maligned as “bitter clingers.”  He took a shot at Christians when he said at an Easter prayer breakfast that “I have to say that, sometimes when I listen to other less-than-loving expressions by Christians, I get concerned.”  Not so concerned was he by the mass beheading of Coptic Christians on a Libyan beach by the Islamic State.

Obama once lectured Christians to “get off their high horse” as they pronounced their teachings to the faithful:

During remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast, President Barack Obama said that all religions had grappled with radical elements attempting to co-opt its spiritual messages, a rebuke to those who want him to more forcefully condemn what they consider a violent extremism inherent in Islam[.] …


“Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout history,” Obama continued, “and lest we get up on our high horse and think that this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.”


Obama also named slavery and Jim Crow as examples in America, along with religious intolerance “that would have shocked Gandhi” in India.

Religious intolerance?  Physician, heal thyself.  Jesus preached peace long before the prophet Muhammad mounted a horse, grabbed his sword, and began beheading infidels on his way to Mecca.  As for the Crusades, they came after and in response to centuries of Islamic conquest and aggressive war against the infidels of the Christian West.  As Princeton scholar and Islamic expert Bernard Lewis explains, “The Crusade was a delayed response to the jihad, the holy war for Islam, and its purpose was to recover by war what had been lost by war – to free the holy places of Christendom and open them once again, without impediment, to Christian pilgrimage.”  According to St. Louis University and Crusade scholar Thomas Madden, “[a]ll the Crusades met the criteria of just wars.”

Slavery was an institution supported by Democrats in the South.  Jim Crow laws were written by Democrats.  Evils may have been committed in the name of Christ, but not at the urging of Christ, who preached peace and love and mercy to one’s enemies.

It is Barack Hussein Obama who divided America and incited paranoia, attacking, cops, Christians, and clingers, just to name a few.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.

Transference is a psychiatric term for the ability to take your faults and ascribe them to others.  In the dictionary next to the definition should be a photo of former President Barack Obama, particularly the section in his September 7 University of Illinois speech where he attacked President Trump for fomenting paranoia and division:

In a moment reminiscent of Hillary Clinton’s outrageous characterization of Trump voters as “deplorable” and “irredeemable,” President Obama said: “I have to say this… Over the past few decades, the politics of division and resentment and paranoia has unfortunately found a home in the Republican Party.”


Labeling the 63 million Trump voters as “deplorable” and “irredeemable” didn’t work out for Hillary Clinton when she ran a failed presidential campaign against Trump in 2016.  Labeling the same voters as divisive, resentful and paranoid will not work for Democrats in the November midterm elections.

No, it will not, and the remarks by this poster child for self-serving hypocrisy and delusion go a long way toward explaining how Obama shrank the Democratic Party by a thousand state, local, and federal legislative seats during his eight years in office.  Once again, to use President Obama’s own phrase, he “acted stupidly.”

That was the remark President Obama would fire towards the Cambridge, Massachusetts police who arrested black Harvard professor Harry Louis Gates, Jr. at his home for disorderly conduct:

President Obama knocked back some cold beer in the Rose Garden with Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and police Sgt. James Crowley of Cambridge, Mass., the two men at the heart last week of a heated debate over race in America[.] …


The dispute began July 16 when Crowley, while investigating a report of a potential burglary at Gates’ house, arrested the agitated professor on a charge of disorderly conduct.  Gates, who is black, accused the white sergeant of racial profiling.  The disorderly conduct charge was dropped – but the dispute exploded into a national debate, particularly after Obama said the police had “acted stupidly” in arresting Gates.

Remember Obama’s beer summit, held to talk about how the Cambridge Police acted against the offended black professor Gates?  And then, afterward, who helped Gates down the steps?  The “racist cop,” of course.  Obama couldn’t be bothered to make sure his friend got down the steps.

From Ferguson to Baltimore and beyond, President Obama’s words aiding and abetting the war on cops and inciting racial division have been the equivalent of yelling “fire” in a crowded theater.  He has encouraged a false narrative of racist cops and racist police departments whose officers are guilty until proven innocent, or buried, whichever comes first.  Never mind that in both Baltimore and Ferguson, the cops accused of racism and murder were found guilty of neither.

It was Ferguson, Missouri, where President Obama’s Justice Department sent forty FBI agents to prove that Officer Darren Wilson was a racist murder of an innocent black teen. He made the race-baiting Al Sharpton, who helped create the myth of “hands up, don’t shoot,” a key adviser on race matters and Ferguson.

In December 2014, President Obama stoked the fires of animus against cops when he said on BET that police were judging blacks, not on the content of their character, but on the color of their skin:

President Barack Obama made an appearance on Black Entertainment Television (BET) Monday to reach out to black Americans and discuss calls for criminal justice reform after two grand jury decisions cleared white police officers in the deaths of two black men.  The president has to carefully express his concern for the safety of African-Americans while not undermining the law enforcement community.  President Obama suggested that the issue of police vs. minorities is deeply rooted in American culture and is the result of police having a “subconscious fear of folks who look different.”

That is a common theme for the divisive Obama, one he now applies to illegal immigration and border reform, saying those who don’t like illegal aliens entering the U.S. to murder our children, like Kate Steinle and Mollie Tibbetts, or oppose sanctuary cities that harbor illegal alien criminals or believe that the rape, torture, and murder gang known as MS-13 aren’t here seeking a better life, are racists.

The alleged fear by conservatives of others not like them was a key part of the famous “bitter clingers” remark made during the 2008 campaign:

Barack Obama had not yet locked up the nomination for his party when he revealed his true feelings about gun owners to attendees of a private fund raiser in San Francisco last April:


You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them.  And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.  And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

In Obama’s world, Islam is a religion of tolerance – not so much of Christians, also maligned as “bitter clingers.”  He took a shot at Christians when he said at an Easter prayer breakfast that “I have to say that, sometimes when I listen to other less-than-loving expressions by Christians, I get concerned.”  Not so concerned was he by the mass beheading of Coptic Christians on a Libyan beach by the Islamic State.

Obama once lectured Christians to “get off their high horse” as they pronounced their teachings to the faithful:

During remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast, President Barack Obama said that all religions had grappled with radical elements attempting to co-opt its spiritual messages, a rebuke to those who want him to more forcefully condemn what they consider a violent extremism inherent in Islam[.] …


“Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout history,” Obama continued, “and lest we get up on our high horse and think that this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.”


Obama also named slavery and Jim Crow as examples in America, along with religious intolerance “that would have shocked Gandhi” in India.

Religious intolerance?  Physician, heal thyself.  Jesus preached peace long before the prophet Muhammad mounted a horse, grabbed his sword, and began beheading infidels on his way to Mecca.  As for the Crusades, they came after and in response to centuries of Islamic conquest and aggressive war against the infidels of the Christian West.  As Princeton scholar and Islamic expert Bernard Lewis explains, “The Crusade was a delayed response to the jihad, the holy war for Islam, and its purpose was to recover by war what had been lost by war – to free the holy places of Christendom and open them once again, without impediment, to Christian pilgrimage.”  According to St. Louis University and Crusade scholar Thomas Madden, “[a]ll the Crusades met the criteria of just wars.”

Slavery was an institution supported by Democrats in the South.  Jim Crow laws were written by Democrats.  Evils may have been committed in the name of Christ, but not at the urging of Christ, who preached peace and love and mercy to one’s enemies.

It is Barack Hussein Obama who divided America and incited paranoia, attacking, cops, Christians, and clingers, just to name a few.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.



Source link

208911.jpg

Obama's Benghazi Body Bags No Mere Conspiracy Theory


The arrogance of the man who lied to the parents of the Benghazi dead in front of their sons’ caskets as they were returned to the country they fought for is mind-boggling.  As he attempted to rewrite many chapters of his failed presidency in a speech at the University of Illinois, he called the accurate and documented reports of the criminal negligence of secretary of state Hillary Clinton and himself during the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack on our Benghazi compound a mere “conspiracy theory.”

Conspiracy theories don’t produce body bags, sir, but perhaps you don’t remember that night all too well because you spent the time four brave Americans were being killed under your command in Libya readying up for a Las Vegas fundraiser.

Kris Paronto, former Army Ranger and CIA contractor who fought with his colleagues on the roof of the CIA annex in Benghazi, remembers that night and tweeted his response to the then-president’s arrogant and dismissive ridicule of their sacrifice and your incompetence:

Benghazi is a conspiracy @BarackObama ?! How bout we do this,let’s put your cowardly ass on the top of a roof with 6 of your buddies&shoot rpg’s&Ak47’s at you while terrorists lob 81mm mortars killing 2 of your buddies all while waiting for US support that you never sent

Obama and Hillary had plenty of warnings that the security at Benghazi was woefully inadequate, that the compound was swimming in an ocean of terrorist training camps.  They ignored these warnings, and when the attack happened, they did nothing when a rescue mission could have been mounted.  Instead, stand-down orders were given to would-be rescuers, and following the attack, the infamous video lie was concocted and spread over the airwaves, with President Obama repeating it no fewer than six times in a speech before the United Nations.

Hicks, the last man to speak to Ambassador Chris Stevens, has exposed the video lie, documenting how he told Hillary’s State Department what was happening in real time that fateful night and how her State Department ignored warnings from Chris Stevens and others about the gathering terrorist storm and the woeful  lack of security.

Now retired, private citizen Hicks goes farther, telling Fox News Hillary Clinton broke laws while condemning four Americans to death at the hands of terrorists:

Just as the Constitution makes national security the President’s highest priority, U.S. law mandates the secretary of state to develop and implement policies and programs “to provide for the security … of all United States personnel on official duty abroad.”


This includes not only the State Department employees, but also the CIA officers in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012.  And the Benghazi record is clear: Secretary Clinton failed to provide adequate security for U.S. government personnel assigned to Benghazi and Tripoli.


The Benghazi Committee’s report graphically illustrates the magnitude of her failure.  It states that during August 2012, the State Department reduced the number of U.S. security personnel assigned to the Embassy in Tripoli from 34 (1.5 security officers per diplomat) to 6 (1 security officer per 4.5 diplomats), despite a rapidly deteriorating security situation in both Tripoli and Benghazi.  Thus, according to the Report, “there were no surplus security agents” to travel to Benghazi with Amb. Stevens “without leaving the Embassy in Tripoli at severe risk.”

Patricia Smith, mother of Sean Smith, who fought and died for his country at Benghazi, spoke of Hillary’s callousness at the 2012 GOP convention.  Smith focused in her riveting convention speech on Hillary’s disregard for the families of the Benghazi dead:

I know a few things could’ve been done to prevent it.  But nobody’s admitting to anything. Right now, my understanding is Hillary didn’t do a damn thing.  And I wonder what she did as Secretary of State, because she disavows everything.  She disavows the fact that she even got any call for security[.] … If this is her Department, she certainly doesn’t know how to run the Department.  And she lied the whole time. She lied to me and called me a liar on TV[.]

The movie 13 Hours is based on the book, in which the three CIA contractors, Kris Paronto, John Tiegen, and Mark Geist, who fought at Benghazi, tell the tale of the battle they fought with Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, and Tyrone Woods in the terrorist attack that claimed the life of Ambassador Chris Stevens, whose name Hillary could not remember.

It confirms that Benghazi was not a spontaneous demonstration gone bad due a video, despite Susan Rice repeating that lie on five Sunday talk shows, and President Obama repeated six times before the United Nations.  Hillary Clinton knew that it was a lie, telling the truth to daughter Chelsea and an Egyptian diplomat before she lied to the parents of the Benghazi dead.  It confirms that rescuers were told to stand down.

Hillary and her State Department had warnings, including from Ambassador Stevens himself, that Benghazi was an unsecure trap in the face of a growing terrorist threat.  As Investor’s Business Daily editorialized on documents unearthed by Judicial Watch:

The documents describe Libya as hardly the poster child for the Arab Spring, and echo warnings sent to State by Stevens himself.  He was aware of an attack on a convoy carrying the British ambassador to Libya and a June 2012 attack where an improvised explosive device blew a hole in the Benghazi consulate wall.  Nowhere in the 486 pages is mention of or concern for the effects of a video.


On Aug. 8, 2012, Stevens sent a two-page cable to the State Department entitled “The Guns of August: Security in Eastern Libya” and noted a dangerous “security vacuum” in and around Benghazi, as well as the presence of terrorist training camps.  He was ignored.


The documents reveal that, early on the day after the attack, the Pentagon received intelligence briefing slides detailing that the June 6, 2012, attack was tied to al-Qaida-linked terrorists seeking an Islamic state in Libya and who threatened to attack U.S. interests there.  It also said the June 6 attack “came in response to the 5 June (2012) drone strike on senior al-Qaida leader Abu Yahya al-libi.”


That Sept. 11 was a terrorist attack was known before, during and after it took place.


“I personally … think the (U.S. Africa Command) very quickly got to the point that this was not a demonstration, this was a terrorist attack,” Gen. Carter Ham, head of the Command, testified behind closed doors in June 2013 before the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.


And that, Ham said, was the “nature of the conversation” he had with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey moments before a 30-minute meeting with Obama prior to the president resting up for his fundraising Las Vegas trip.

Hillary Clinton ignore the pleas for added security at Benghazi, the terrorist threat that was building, and then let pleas for a rescue fall on deaf ears.  Could a rescue attempt have been mounted?  According to Hicks, yes, it could have:

Hicks says he believes “if we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced” – around 9:30 p.m. that night – “I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split.  They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them.”


Hicks, who was in Tripoli that night, relates how the Libyan prime minister called and told him that the U.S. ambassador had been killed, after which “the Libyan military agreed to fly their C-130 to Benghazi and carry additional personnel to Benghazi as reinforcements.”


A Special Forces team was ready to go along but was forbidden from doing so by the U.S. Special Operations Command in Africa.

When Patricia Smith testified before Congress, most Democrats walked out of the room, turning their backs on the mother of one of those patriots abandoned by Obama and Hillary at Benghazi, refusing to hear her grief as she condemned what Obama now calls a mere “conspiracy theory”:

With the exception of ranking member Elijah Cummings, D-Md., and Jackie Speier, D-Calif., 12 other Democrats on the Committee shamefully left the room and refused to listen to the testimony of Smith[.] …


Mrs. Smith testified how President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary Clinton, among other top administration officials, approached her at the casket ceremony when her son’s body was returned to the U.S.


“Every one of them came up to me, gave me a big hug, and I asked them, ‘What happened, please tell me?’  And every one of them said it was the video.  And we all know that it wasn’t the video. Even at that time they knew it wasn’t the video. So they all lied to me.”

Judging from Obama’s speech, they’re still lying.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.

The arrogance of the man who lied to the parents of the Benghazi dead in front of their sons’ caskets as they were returned to the country they fought for is mind-boggling.  As he attempted to rewrite many chapters of his failed presidency in a speech at the University of Illinois, he called the accurate and documented reports of the criminal negligence of secretary of state Hillary Clinton and himself during the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack on our Benghazi compound a mere “conspiracy theory.”

Conspiracy theories don’t produce body bags, sir, but perhaps you don’t remember that night all too well because you spent the time four brave Americans were being killed under your command in Libya readying up for a Las Vegas fundraiser.

Kris Paronto, former Army Ranger and CIA contractor who fought with his colleagues on the roof of the CIA annex in Benghazi, remembers that night and tweeted his response to the then-president’s arrogant and dismissive ridicule of their sacrifice and your incompetence:

Benghazi is a conspiracy @BarackObama ?! How bout we do this,let’s put your cowardly ass on the top of a roof with 6 of your buddies&shoot rpg’s&Ak47’s at you while terrorists lob 81mm mortars killing 2 of your buddies all while waiting for US support that you never sent

Obama and Hillary had plenty of warnings that the security at Benghazi was woefully inadequate, that the compound was swimming in an ocean of terrorist training camps.  They ignored these warnings, and when the attack happened, they did nothing when a rescue mission could have been mounted.  Instead, stand-down orders were given to would-be rescuers, and following the attack, the infamous video lie was concocted and spread over the airwaves, with President Obama repeating it no fewer than six times in a speech before the United Nations.

Hicks, the last man to speak to Ambassador Chris Stevens, has exposed the video lie, documenting how he told Hillary’s State Department what was happening in real time that fateful night and how her State Department ignored warnings from Chris Stevens and others about the gathering terrorist storm and the woeful  lack of security.

Now retired, private citizen Hicks goes farther, telling Fox News Hillary Clinton broke laws while condemning four Americans to death at the hands of terrorists:

Just as the Constitution makes national security the President’s highest priority, U.S. law mandates the secretary of state to develop and implement policies and programs “to provide for the security … of all United States personnel on official duty abroad.”


This includes not only the State Department employees, but also the CIA officers in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012.  And the Benghazi record is clear: Secretary Clinton failed to provide adequate security for U.S. government personnel assigned to Benghazi and Tripoli.


The Benghazi Committee’s report graphically illustrates the magnitude of her failure.  It states that during August 2012, the State Department reduced the number of U.S. security personnel assigned to the Embassy in Tripoli from 34 (1.5 security officers per diplomat) to 6 (1 security officer per 4.5 diplomats), despite a rapidly deteriorating security situation in both Tripoli and Benghazi.  Thus, according to the Report, “there were no surplus security agents” to travel to Benghazi with Amb. Stevens “without leaving the Embassy in Tripoli at severe risk.”

Patricia Smith, mother of Sean Smith, who fought and died for his country at Benghazi, spoke of Hillary’s callousness at the 2012 GOP convention.  Smith focused in her riveting convention speech on Hillary’s disregard for the families of the Benghazi dead:

I know a few things could’ve been done to prevent it.  But nobody’s admitting to anything. Right now, my understanding is Hillary didn’t do a damn thing.  And I wonder what she did as Secretary of State, because she disavows everything.  She disavows the fact that she even got any call for security[.] … If this is her Department, she certainly doesn’t know how to run the Department.  And she lied the whole time. She lied to me and called me a liar on TV[.]

The movie 13 Hours is based on the book, in which the three CIA contractors, Kris Paronto, John Tiegen, and Mark Geist, who fought at Benghazi, tell the tale of the battle they fought with Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, and Tyrone Woods in the terrorist attack that claimed the life of Ambassador Chris Stevens, whose name Hillary could not remember.

It confirms that Benghazi was not a spontaneous demonstration gone bad due a video, despite Susan Rice repeating that lie on five Sunday talk shows, and President Obama repeated six times before the United Nations.  Hillary Clinton knew that it was a lie, telling the truth to daughter Chelsea and an Egyptian diplomat before she lied to the parents of the Benghazi dead.  It confirms that rescuers were told to stand down.

Hillary and her State Department had warnings, including from Ambassador Stevens himself, that Benghazi was an unsecure trap in the face of a growing terrorist threat.  As Investor’s Business Daily editorialized on documents unearthed by Judicial Watch:

The documents describe Libya as hardly the poster child for the Arab Spring, and echo warnings sent to State by Stevens himself.  He was aware of an attack on a convoy carrying the British ambassador to Libya and a June 2012 attack where an improvised explosive device blew a hole in the Benghazi consulate wall.  Nowhere in the 486 pages is mention of or concern for the effects of a video.


On Aug. 8, 2012, Stevens sent a two-page cable to the State Department entitled “The Guns of August: Security in Eastern Libya” and noted a dangerous “security vacuum” in and around Benghazi, as well as the presence of terrorist training camps.  He was ignored.


The documents reveal that, early on the day after the attack, the Pentagon received intelligence briefing slides detailing that the June 6, 2012, attack was tied to al-Qaida-linked terrorists seeking an Islamic state in Libya and who threatened to attack U.S. interests there.  It also said the June 6 attack “came in response to the 5 June (2012) drone strike on senior al-Qaida leader Abu Yahya al-libi.”


That Sept. 11 was a terrorist attack was known before, during and after it took place.


“I personally … think the (U.S. Africa Command) very quickly got to the point that this was not a demonstration, this was a terrorist attack,” Gen. Carter Ham, head of the Command, testified behind closed doors in June 2013 before the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.


And that, Ham said, was the “nature of the conversation” he had with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey moments before a 30-minute meeting with Obama prior to the president resting up for his fundraising Las Vegas trip.

Hillary Clinton ignore the pleas for added security at Benghazi, the terrorist threat that was building, and then let pleas for a rescue fall on deaf ears.  Could a rescue attempt have been mounted?  According to Hicks, yes, it could have:

Hicks says he believes “if we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced” – around 9:30 p.m. that night – “I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split.  They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them.”


Hicks, who was in Tripoli that night, relates how the Libyan prime minister called and told him that the U.S. ambassador had been killed, after which “the Libyan military agreed to fly their C-130 to Benghazi and carry additional personnel to Benghazi as reinforcements.”


A Special Forces team was ready to go along but was forbidden from doing so by the U.S. Special Operations Command in Africa.

When Patricia Smith testified before Congress, most Democrats walked out of the room, turning their backs on the mother of one of those patriots abandoned by Obama and Hillary at Benghazi, refusing to hear her grief as she condemned what Obama now calls a mere “conspiracy theory”:

With the exception of ranking member Elijah Cummings, D-Md., and Jackie Speier, D-Calif., 12 other Democrats on the Committee shamefully left the room and refused to listen to the testimony of Smith[.] …


Mrs. Smith testified how President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary Clinton, among other top administration officials, approached her at the casket ceremony when her son’s body was returned to the U.S.


“Every one of them came up to me, gave me a big hug, and I asked them, ‘What happened, please tell me?’  And every one of them said it was the video.  And we all know that it wasn’t the video. Even at that time they knew it wasn’t the video. So they all lied to me.”

Judging from Obama’s speech, they’re still lying.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.



Source link

208943.png

Cory Booker Is Sharpton, Not Spartacus


What is the difference between Cory Booker and Emily Litella, the late Gilda Radner’s classic “Saturday Night Live” character who would go off on epic rants only to say, when told her premise was incorrect, “Never mind”? Cory Booker will not say, “Never mind.”

Booker, the new poster child for demagoguery, called it his Spartacus moment, pretending to risk his political career by releasing, in violation of Senate rules, an email by Judge Brett Kavanaugh on racial profiling that had already been cleared for release, a post 9/11 email that expressed the hope that a race-neutral set of rules for vetting terrorists could be found. Racist it was not, except in the mind of Booker, who was less like Spartacus and more like that little Martian in the movie Space Jam ready to fall on his rubber sword.

As Fox news contributor and Democratic pollster Doug Schoen opines about Booker’s latest tirade:

The senator was not elected to pretend to engage in civil disobedience that really isn’t civil disobedience – in an effort to appeal to the Democrats’ growing progressive wing – without taking any real risks at all.


And Booker was not elected to play the role of one of the many protesters who, during Kavanaugh’s hearing and previously, have taken well-publicized protest actions to “resist” the Trump administration in every way possible, including violating the law….


Even though the rule-breaking by Booker turned out not to be rule-breaking in the end, it set a bad precedent. Senators need to follow the rules of the chamber. That’s because in order for the Senate to operate smoothly in service of the American people it has to operate by rules – and members have to be able to trust each other to abide by those rules.


When senators feel they can ignore rules whenever they wish and fight their opponents with any means necessary the Senate can descend into chaos and paralysis, making it unable to function as what it used to be called – “the world’s greatest deliberative body.”

This is not Mr. Smith goes to Washington. This is Saul Alinsky runs for president.

Somewhere Saul Alinsky, author of the progressive guidebook, Rules for Radicals, is smiling. His goal was to destroy America’s institutions through demonization of their occupants and the corruption of their functions. If Donald Trump’s election has done anything, it has exposed the depth and stench of the swamp; pulled back the curtain and forced us to pay attention to the anarchists who were running the show behind.

Cory Booker intends to ride the race card all the way to the White House and if good men like Judge Kavanaugh are to be sacrificed well, hey, break the eggs and make your omelet. His demonization of Kavanaugh as a racist is akin to his slanderous assault on then attorney general nominee Jeff Sessions who, whatever his other faults, is not a racist.

Cory Booker willingly stepped to the plate as the designated character assassin of fellow Sen. Jeff Sessions. It was a forum of great attention that perhaps Booker thought might launch a 2020 presidential run like another freshman Senator, Barack Obama, whose 2004 Democratic Convention speech launched his presidential campaign. As Sen. Tom Cotton noted on Facebook:

I’m very disappointed that Senator Booker has chosen to start his 2020 presidential campaign by testifying against Senator Sessions. This disgraceful breach of custom is especially surprising since Senator Booker just last year said he was “honored to have partnered with Senator Sessions” on a resolution honoring civil-rights marchers. Senator Booker says he feels compelled to speak out because Senator Session wants to keep criminals behind bars, drugs off our streets, and amnesty from becoming law. He’s welcome to oppose these common-sense policies and vote against Senator Sessions’ nomination, but what is so unique about those views to require his extraordinary testimony? Nothing. This hearing simply offers a platform for his presidential aspirations.

So too does the hearing on Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation as a Supreme Court justice. Racism is the last refuge of political scoundrels like Cory Booker, something which requires an historical amnesia of historical and, yes, hysterical proportions.

Booker’s historical amnesia omits the fact that it was Senator Robert Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia and former “Grand Kleagle” with the Ku Klux Klan, who holds the distinction of being the only Senator to have opposed the only two black nominees to the Supreme Court, Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas, and led a 52-day filibuster against this legislation.

Sen. Al Gore, father of the former vice president, voted against the act, as did Sen. J. William Fulbright, to whom Bill Clinton dedicated a memorial, current senior senator from South Carolina Ernest Hollings, Sen. Richard Russell and, of course, Sen. Strom Thurmond, who was a Democrat at that time.

Booker forgets that it was Democrats who unleashed the dogs and turned on the fire hoses on civil rights marchers. It was Democrats who stood in the schoolhouse door and are still standing there by opposing school choice and trapping minority children in failing schools. It was Democrats who blocked the bridge in Selma.

Booker’s amnesia omits the fact that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would never have been possible without Republican leadership. Not only was that legislation a personal victory for Illinois Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen, then Senate Minority leader; Republicans in both the House and Senate supported the measure in far greater percentages than Democrats. Only six GOP senators voted against the act, compared with 21 Democrats. The party of Abraham Lincoln and Jeff Sessions beat back the fire hoses and dogs of the party of Robert Byrd and Cory Booker.

As one pundit put it, the Democrats should know a lot about Jim Crow laws, since they are the ones who wrote them. Condoleezza Rice, President George W. Bush’s national security advisor, and who introduced Kavanaugh at his hearing, explained at the 2000 GOP national convention  why a black college professor would be a Republican:

The first Republican I knew was my father John Rice. And he is still the Republican I admire the most. My father joined our party because the Democrats in Jim Crow Alabama of 1952 would not register him to vote. The Republicans did. I want you to know that my father has never forgotten that day, and neither have I.

And neither should we. Booker is not Spartacus, fighting for the freedom of slaves and the proposition that all are created equal. He is Al Sharpton, a race-baiting demagogue lusting after the power of government, ready to rewrite history and demonize anyone blocking his progressive path as a racist.

Go ahead, Cory, play the race card. We’ll play our Trump card.

Daniel John Sobieski is a free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.

What is the difference between Cory Booker and Emily Litella, the late Gilda Radner’s classic “Saturday Night Live” character who would go off on epic rants only to say, when told her premise was incorrect, “Never mind”? Cory Booker will not say, “Never mind.”

Booker, the new poster child for demagoguery, called it his Spartacus moment, pretending to risk his political career by releasing, in violation of Senate rules, an email by Judge Brett Kavanaugh on racial profiling that had already been cleared for release, a post 9/11 email that expressed the hope that a race-neutral set of rules for vetting terrorists could be found. Racist it was not, except in the mind of Booker, who was less like Spartacus and more like that little Martian in the movie Space Jam ready to fall on his rubber sword.

As Fox news contributor and Democratic pollster Doug Schoen opines about Booker’s latest tirade:

The senator was not elected to pretend to engage in civil disobedience that really isn’t civil disobedience – in an effort to appeal to the Democrats’ growing progressive wing – without taking any real risks at all.


And Booker was not elected to play the role of one of the many protesters who, during Kavanaugh’s hearing and previously, have taken well-publicized protest actions to “resist” the Trump administration in every way possible, including violating the law….


Even though the rule-breaking by Booker turned out not to be rule-breaking in the end, it set a bad precedent. Senators need to follow the rules of the chamber. That’s because in order for the Senate to operate smoothly in service of the American people it has to operate by rules – and members have to be able to trust each other to abide by those rules.


When senators feel they can ignore rules whenever they wish and fight their opponents with any means necessary the Senate can descend into chaos and paralysis, making it unable to function as what it used to be called – “the world’s greatest deliberative body.”

This is not Mr. Smith goes to Washington. This is Saul Alinsky runs for president.

Somewhere Saul Alinsky, author of the progressive guidebook, Rules for Radicals, is smiling. His goal was to destroy America’s institutions through demonization of their occupants and the corruption of their functions. If Donald Trump’s election has done anything, it has exposed the depth and stench of the swamp; pulled back the curtain and forced us to pay attention to the anarchists who were running the show behind.

Cory Booker intends to ride the race card all the way to the White House and if good men like Judge Kavanaugh are to be sacrificed well, hey, break the eggs and make your omelet. His demonization of Kavanaugh as a racist is akin to his slanderous assault on then attorney general nominee Jeff Sessions who, whatever his other faults, is not a racist.

Cory Booker willingly stepped to the plate as the designated character assassin of fellow Sen. Jeff Sessions. It was a forum of great attention that perhaps Booker thought might launch a 2020 presidential run like another freshman Senator, Barack Obama, whose 2004 Democratic Convention speech launched his presidential campaign. As Sen. Tom Cotton noted on Facebook:

I’m very disappointed that Senator Booker has chosen to start his 2020 presidential campaign by testifying against Senator Sessions. This disgraceful breach of custom is especially surprising since Senator Booker just last year said he was “honored to have partnered with Senator Sessions” on a resolution honoring civil-rights marchers. Senator Booker says he feels compelled to speak out because Senator Session wants to keep criminals behind bars, drugs off our streets, and amnesty from becoming law. He’s welcome to oppose these common-sense policies and vote against Senator Sessions’ nomination, but what is so unique about those views to require his extraordinary testimony? Nothing. This hearing simply offers a platform for his presidential aspirations.

So too does the hearing on Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation as a Supreme Court justice. Racism is the last refuge of political scoundrels like Cory Booker, something which requires an historical amnesia of historical and, yes, hysterical proportions.

Booker’s historical amnesia omits the fact that it was Senator Robert Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia and former “Grand Kleagle” with the Ku Klux Klan, who holds the distinction of being the only Senator to have opposed the only two black nominees to the Supreme Court, Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas, and led a 52-day filibuster against this legislation.

Sen. Al Gore, father of the former vice president, voted against the act, as did Sen. J. William Fulbright, to whom Bill Clinton dedicated a memorial, current senior senator from South Carolina Ernest Hollings, Sen. Richard Russell and, of course, Sen. Strom Thurmond, who was a Democrat at that time.

Booker forgets that it was Democrats who unleashed the dogs and turned on the fire hoses on civil rights marchers. It was Democrats who stood in the schoolhouse door and are still standing there by opposing school choice and trapping minority children in failing schools. It was Democrats who blocked the bridge in Selma.

Booker’s amnesia omits the fact that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would never have been possible without Republican leadership. Not only was that legislation a personal victory for Illinois Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen, then Senate Minority leader; Republicans in both the House and Senate supported the measure in far greater percentages than Democrats. Only six GOP senators voted against the act, compared with 21 Democrats. The party of Abraham Lincoln and Jeff Sessions beat back the fire hoses and dogs of the party of Robert Byrd and Cory Booker.

As one pundit put it, the Democrats should know a lot about Jim Crow laws, since they are the ones who wrote them. Condoleezza Rice, President George W. Bush’s national security advisor, and who introduced Kavanaugh at his hearing, explained at the 2000 GOP national convention  why a black college professor would be a Republican:

The first Republican I knew was my father John Rice. And he is still the Republican I admire the most. My father joined our party because the Democrats in Jim Crow Alabama of 1952 would not register him to vote. The Republicans did. I want you to know that my father has never forgotten that day, and neither have I.

And neither should we. Booker is not Spartacus, fighting for the freedom of slaves and the proposition that all are created equal. He is Al Sharpton, a race-baiting demagogue lusting after the power of government, ready to rewrite history and demonize anyone blocking his progressive path as a racist.

Go ahead, Cory, play the race card. We’ll play our Trump card.

Daniel John Sobieski is a free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.



Source link

208910.png

Honor Pat Tillman, Not Colin Kaepernick


Despite Nike’s pompous slogan adorning its new poster child for its corporate insanity and the NFL’s ongoing death wish as both slap our military veterans and the flag and our freedoms in the face, former quarterback Colin Kaepernick has sacrificed nothing compared to those who risked their lives for this country and its freedoms like former Arizona Cardinals star Pat Tillman.

While some who would diminish and denigrate his genuine heroism and patriotism like to point out that Tillman was killed by friendly fire in Afghanistan, the fact remains that he willingly gave up a lucrative Hall  of Fame career to put his life on the line for his country:

Former Arizona Cardinals safety Pat Tillman was posthumously awarded the Silver Star for leading his Army Rangers unit to the rescue of comrades caught in an ambush.


Tillman was shot and killed in Afghanistan while fighting “without regard for his personal safety,” the Army said Friday in announcing the award[.] …


The Silver Star, awarded for gallantry on the battlefield, is one of the most distinguished military honors[.] …


Tillman’s group was already safely out of the area, but when the trailing group came under fire he ordered his men to get out of their vehicles and move up a hill toward the enemy.


As Tillman crested the hill he returned fire with his M249 automatic weapon, a lightweight machine gun.


“Through the firing Tillman’s voice was heard issuing fire commands to take the fight to the enemy on the dominating high ground,” the award announcement said.  “Only after his team engaged the well-armed enemy did it appear their fires diminished.


“As a result of his leadership and his team’s efforts, the platoon trail section was able to maneuver through the ambush to positions of safety without a single casualty.” …


Tillman, 27, walked away from a three-year, $3.6-million contract offer from the Arizona Cardinals to join the Army in 2002.

Greater love hath no man than that he lay down his life for his friends.  Kaepernick was last seen running to the bank to deposit his Nike checks while muttering something about oppression, racism, and social injustice.  Yet, like many of the social justice warriors now prevalent in the NFL, Kaepernick never took a knee as young black men were being slaughtered with impunity on the streets of Chicago and other inner cities under President Obama.  Now he and his ilk conjure up imaginary conspiracies of police to murder as many black men as they can.  As Fox News host Sean Hannity rightly observed:

“‘Sacrificing everything’ is not a multimillionaire social justice warrior whose greatest feat of bravery [is] kneeling on a football field[.]” …


[Hannity] said soldiers, law enforcement officers and firefighters are the ones who truly sacrifice everything.


“There are millions of men and women who have really sacrificed everything for strangers they didn’t even know, so the world, this country, could be a better, safer, freer place[,]” Hannity said.


“There are plenty of heroes in this country that Nike could feature, but [a] Castro-loving … cop-hating, ex-three-year-backup quarterback is not one of them.”

Everybody is free to pick his own heroes, but Kaepernick complains about oppression and social injustice as he once defended Cuban oppression while sporting t-shirts honoring Cuba’s Communist murderer Che Guevara, dictator Fidel Castro’s right-hand man:

When the reporter, who hasn’t been named, pressed Kaepernick specifically on Castro’s history of oppression, he replied: ‘One thing that Fidel Castro did do is they have the highest literacy rate because they invest more in their education system than they do in their prison system, which we do not do here, even though we’re fully capable of doing that.’


The reporter replied: ‘He also did something that we do not do here: he broke up families, he took over a country without any justice and without any election’.

Excusing the oppression and tyranny of a communist dictator who denied his people freedom of speech, press, religion, and movement as thousands languished in Cuban jails is on par with Kaepernick’s ignoring that most of the injustice he bemoans happens in cities run by progressive liberal Democrats like the Chicago of Barack Obama and the soon to be former mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emmanuel, who abandoned his re-election campaign after Chicago blacks told him to get lost.

Whenever I hear NFL players who take a knee during the National Anthem, I am reminded of the double amputees who have returned from America’s wars and the fact that while, because of their sacrifice over centuries, we are entitled to speak freely, none of us is entitled to a particular forum.

NFL players are employees of a larger organization, just like Curt Schilling was when ESPN fired him for what he thought was protected speech.  The speech is protected.  Your access to a particular forum is not.  They are teammates in a sport that pays these allegedly oppressed spoiled brats millions.  Their teammates may share a different view, so does the locker room become a game prep area or a debating society?  Does the field remain a sporting arena or a campaign rally?  Those who take a knee were indeed given that right by many who no longer have knees and are privileged to take a knee in a sport paid for by millions of fans who may disagree with them and who paid to see a game, not a protest.  Players who take a knee think they are being patriotic, when they are merely being self-indulgent and selfish.  Go rent out a stadium and invite people to pay just to see you take a knee, and see if anybody shows up.

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell whines that President Trump’s remarks about respecting the flag and the National Anthem are disrespectful of NFL players:

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said Saturday that President Trump’s recent comments about players kneeling during the national anthem are “divisive” and show a “lack of respect” for the pro football league and its players.


“The NFL and our players are at our best when we help create a sense of unity in our country and our culture,” he said in a statement.  “Divisive comments like these demonstrate an unfortunate lack of respect for the NFL, our great game and all of our players, and a failure to understand the overwhelming force for good our clubs and players represent in our communities.”

Millionaires taking a knee during the National Anthem to protest alleged social injustice do not build unity and are not a force for good.  Look up in the stands, players, and see the diversity and equality of those, including veterans, who came to see you shut up and play.

Those who would take a knee to protest the American flag likely have never been handed a folded one.  NFL players who want to take a knee should talk to the wounded warriors who no longer can.

Honor the likes of Pat Tillman, not Colin Kaepernick, whose idea of a social justice warrior is Che Guevara.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.

Despite Nike’s pompous slogan adorning its new poster child for its corporate insanity and the NFL’s ongoing death wish as both slap our military veterans and the flag and our freedoms in the face, former quarterback Colin Kaepernick has sacrificed nothing compared to those who risked their lives for this country and its freedoms like former Arizona Cardinals star Pat Tillman.

While some who would diminish and denigrate his genuine heroism and patriotism like to point out that Tillman was killed by friendly fire in Afghanistan, the fact remains that he willingly gave up a lucrative Hall  of Fame career to put his life on the line for his country:

Former Arizona Cardinals safety Pat Tillman was posthumously awarded the Silver Star for leading his Army Rangers unit to the rescue of comrades caught in an ambush.


Tillman was shot and killed in Afghanistan while fighting “without regard for his personal safety,” the Army said Friday in announcing the award[.] …


The Silver Star, awarded for gallantry on the battlefield, is one of the most distinguished military honors[.] …


Tillman’s group was already safely out of the area, but when the trailing group came under fire he ordered his men to get out of their vehicles and move up a hill toward the enemy.


As Tillman crested the hill he returned fire with his M249 automatic weapon, a lightweight machine gun.


“Through the firing Tillman’s voice was heard issuing fire commands to take the fight to the enemy on the dominating high ground,” the award announcement said.  “Only after his team engaged the well-armed enemy did it appear their fires diminished.


“As a result of his leadership and his team’s efforts, the platoon trail section was able to maneuver through the ambush to positions of safety without a single casualty.” …


Tillman, 27, walked away from a three-year, $3.6-million contract offer from the Arizona Cardinals to join the Army in 2002.

Greater love hath no man than that he lay down his life for his friends.  Kaepernick was last seen running to the bank to deposit his Nike checks while muttering something about oppression, racism, and social injustice.  Yet, like many of the social justice warriors now prevalent in the NFL, Kaepernick never took a knee as young black men were being slaughtered with impunity on the streets of Chicago and other inner cities under President Obama.  Now he and his ilk conjure up imaginary conspiracies of police to murder as many black men as they can.  As Fox News host Sean Hannity rightly observed:

“‘Sacrificing everything’ is not a multimillionaire social justice warrior whose greatest feat of bravery [is] kneeling on a football field[.]” …


[Hannity] said soldiers, law enforcement officers and firefighters are the ones who truly sacrifice everything.


“There are millions of men and women who have really sacrificed everything for strangers they didn’t even know, so the world, this country, could be a better, safer, freer place[,]” Hannity said.


“There are plenty of heroes in this country that Nike could feature, but [a] Castro-loving … cop-hating, ex-three-year-backup quarterback is not one of them.”

Everybody is free to pick his own heroes, but Kaepernick complains about oppression and social injustice as he once defended Cuban oppression while sporting t-shirts honoring Cuba’s Communist murderer Che Guevara, dictator Fidel Castro’s right-hand man:

When the reporter, who hasn’t been named, pressed Kaepernick specifically on Castro’s history of oppression, he replied: ‘One thing that Fidel Castro did do is they have the highest literacy rate because they invest more in their education system than they do in their prison system, which we do not do here, even though we’re fully capable of doing that.’


The reporter replied: ‘He also did something that we do not do here: he broke up families, he took over a country without any justice and without any election’.

Excusing the oppression and tyranny of a communist dictator who denied his people freedom of speech, press, religion, and movement as thousands languished in Cuban jails is on par with Kaepernick’s ignoring that most of the injustice he bemoans happens in cities run by progressive liberal Democrats like the Chicago of Barack Obama and the soon to be former mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emmanuel, who abandoned his re-election campaign after Chicago blacks told him to get lost.

Whenever I hear NFL players who take a knee during the National Anthem, I am reminded of the double amputees who have returned from America’s wars and the fact that while, because of their sacrifice over centuries, we are entitled to speak freely, none of us is entitled to a particular forum.

NFL players are employees of a larger organization, just like Curt Schilling was when ESPN fired him for what he thought was protected speech.  The speech is protected.  Your access to a particular forum is not.  They are teammates in a sport that pays these allegedly oppressed spoiled brats millions.  Their teammates may share a different view, so does the locker room become a game prep area or a debating society?  Does the field remain a sporting arena or a campaign rally?  Those who take a knee were indeed given that right by many who no longer have knees and are privileged to take a knee in a sport paid for by millions of fans who may disagree with them and who paid to see a game, not a protest.  Players who take a knee think they are being patriotic, when they are merely being self-indulgent and selfish.  Go rent out a stadium and invite people to pay just to see you take a knee, and see if anybody shows up.

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell whines that President Trump’s remarks about respecting the flag and the National Anthem are disrespectful of NFL players:

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said Saturday that President Trump’s recent comments about players kneeling during the national anthem are “divisive” and show a “lack of respect” for the pro football league and its players.


“The NFL and our players are at our best when we help create a sense of unity in our country and our culture,” he said in a statement.  “Divisive comments like these demonstrate an unfortunate lack of respect for the NFL, our great game and all of our players, and a failure to understand the overwhelming force for good our clubs and players represent in our communities.”

Millionaires taking a knee during the National Anthem to protest alleged social injustice do not build unity and are not a force for good.  Look up in the stands, players, and see the diversity and equality of those, including veterans, who came to see you shut up and play.

Those who would take a knee to protest the American flag likely have never been handed a folded one.  NFL players who want to take a knee should talk to the wounded warriors who no longer can.

Honor the likes of Pat Tillman, not Colin Kaepernick, whose idea of a social justice warrior is Che Guevara.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.



Source link

208868.png

Meghan McCain Gives Anti-military Dems a Free Pass


Obama’s disdain for the military and those who served in it is documented and legendary and he engaged in it to the point of pettiness, as demonstrated when he interrupted a military wedding in Hawaii so he could play some golf:

It certainly didn’t help his image when two Army captains, Captains Natalie Heimel and Edward Mallue Jr. ,  were told hours before their wedding that they had to move it so Obama could play through on the golf course they had selected as the nuptial site…


The president’s 15% approval rating among active-duty military isn’t due merely to the bad optics of such incidents. It’s the result of a defunded and dispirited military led by a disinterested commander in chief who, on Nov. 20, 2009, when Obama flew to Osan Air Base in South Korea to speak to American troops, were told, “You guys make a pretty good photo-op.”…


The military has watched a failed foreign policy in which a precipitate pullout from Iraq saw town after town that had been liberated at great expense in blood and treasure, starting in Fallujah, fall to jihadis and an Islamic State whose rise Obama was warned about but ignored. Many feel with some justification that their sacrifice was for naught, ignored by a president obsessed with keeping a campaign promise to withdraw from a land where so many lost their lives and limbs.


They watched as Obama traded five top Taliban leaders for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, whom many considered a deserter for abandoning his post and wandering off to find himself and the Taliban in the hills of Afghanistan. They also saw Obama let a Marine with post-traumatic stress syndrome, Andrew Tahmooressi, rot in a Mexican jail for the crime of missing his exit on his way to San Diego.


We have a smaller army than any time since before World War II and the smallest navy since 1917. Part of this drawdown has even included some 2,600 battlefield pink slips for captains and others who are serving or have served in Afghanistan.

Obama threw away the blood and treasure and sacrifice of American heroes like John McCain, American heroes he viewed as photo-ops for political purposes. Like Andrew Tahmooressi, Obama had no trouble leaving Marine Sergeant Amir Hekmati behind to languish in an Iranian prison:

A Marine veteran has been held captive in Iran since August 2011, when he was taken prisoner while visiting family and charged with spying. Does President Obama hear his plea for unconditional freedom?


With the exception of deserters like Bowe Bergdahl, those who put on a uniform and serve their country seem like afterthoughts to this administration, if they’re thought of at all.


Just ask Andrew Tahmooressi, the Marine sergeant allowed to languish 214 days in a Mexican jail for the crime of missing a highway exit. Or now, Amir Hekmati of Flagstaff, Ariz., a Marine vet who sits in an Iranian jail, having made the mistake of trying to visit his Iranian family. 


Hekmati has been locked up in Iran’s Evin Prison since he returned to his ancestral home 3-1/2 years ago to visit family. His parents left Iran when the mullahs took power in 1979. He did not think he would later be a victim of Iranian belligerence and American indifference, accused of being a CIA spy. He was first sentenced to death, but that sentence was overturned, and in a retrial he got 10 years in prison.


Unlike Bergdahl in Afghanistan, Amir served with genuine honor and distinction in Iraq, where Shiite militia groups were supplied with weapons and trained in their use by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. These weapons included sophisticated improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, designed to exploit vulnerabilities in U.S. military vehicles and increase American casualties.

Obama prefers deserters like Bowe Bergdahl to heroes like John McCain, trading terrorist Taliban leaders who slaughter Americans for traitors, welcoming and consoling Bergdahl’s parents at the White House while he ignored Bergdahl’s desertion in the heat of battle in Afghanistan

That Bergdahl was a deserter and a traitor should never have been in doubt, yet it was, partially due to President Obama sending National Security Adviser Susan Rice, who spread the Benghazi video lies on the Sunday talk show circuit, to appear on the June 1, 2014 broadcast of ABC’s “This Week” to tell two more lies, that Bergdahl was a good soldier and that trading five top Taliban commanders would not endanger U.S. security. As Breitbart reported:

Regarding the desertion allegations, she said Bergdahl, “served the United States with honor and distinction. And we’ll have the opportunity eventually to learn what has transpired in the past years.”


Rice also said that “assurances relating to the movement, the activities, the monitoring of those detainees [released in exchange for Bergdahl] give us confidence that they cannot and, in all likelihood, will not pose a significant risk to the United States. And that it is in our national interests that this transfer had been made.”

In fact, the Taliban trade of the terrorist equivalent of four-star generals jeopardized U.S. security and was done to exploit Bergdahl’s captivity to help Obama to get the worst of the worst out of Guantanamo to facilitate his campaign pledge of closing the facility. That Bergdahl was a deserter should never have been in doubt, judging by the universal condemnation of those who served with him. Investor’s Business Daily (IBD) noted that fact and editorialized that Obama feared a court-martial because it could lead to him being charged with providing material assistance to a terrorist enemy:

 Every one of the men who served with Bergdahl or tried to find him and who have spoken out publicly has said he was clearly a deserter.


Indeed, the uncontestable fact is that Bergdahl walked away from his post in a time of war, leaving his weapon and gear behind. He was not out for a walk to relieve stress or clear his head.


“Bowe Bergdahl deserted during a time of war, and his fellow Americans lost their lives searching for him,” former Sgt. Matt Vierkant told CNN. At least six soldiers died in operations looking for Bergdahl.


Fox News analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano has said that Obama dreads a court-martial for desertion, which is what the report might recommend, because questions regarding a trade providing material assistance to a terrorist group could be asked.


“We have a federal statute which makes it a felony to provide material assistance to any terrorist organization,” Napolitano said. “It could be money, maps, professional services, any asset whatsoever, (including) human assets.”

John McCain served with honor and distinction. Bowe Bergdahl did not. Meghan McCain had no unkind invective subtly directed towards President Obama, who loathed everything John McCain stood for in and out of the military. One remembers the dismissive tone Obama took towards McCain during the health care summit:

“People are angry,” McCain said. “We promised them change in Washington, and what we got was a process that you and I both said we would change.”


He called on Democrats to “go back to the beginning” and “remove all the special deals for the special interests and the favored few,” adding that he favors a system in which “geography does not dictate what kind of health care.”


A visibly annoyed Mr. Obama immediately responded, saying “we can spend the remainder of the time with our respective talking points going back and forth. We were supposed to be talking about insurance.”


“We’re not campaigning anymore,” he told McCain. “The election’s over.”

So much for a common interest and working with McCain to solve America’s problems. John McCain, as Meghan McCain noted, was proud of America. President Obama, upon election, immediately embarked on an apology tour and a vociferous campaign denouncing the very American exceptionalism John McCain believed in.

Meghan McCain also trashed Trump in front of Michelle Obama, who once famously noted during her husband’s 2008 campaign her disdain for America and its history:

Speaking in Milwaukee, Wis., on Monday, she said, “People in this country are ready for change and hungry for a different kind of politics and… for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.”


Greeted with rousing applause after making the comment in Milwaukee, Obama delivered an amended version of the speech later that day in Madison, Wis.


“For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country… not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change,” she said. “I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment.”

There in front of Meghan McCain was former Secretary of State John Kerry, who has opposed military preparedness and slandered the American forces in Vietnam as rapists and pillagers in congressional testimony:

Kerry, of course, first appeared on the national stage in 1971 when he testified, fresh from his swift-boat service in Vietnam, that U.S. troops had routinely “raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan…”


In 2005, he made our troops sound like terrorists when he accused them of “going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night (and) terrorizing kids, children, (and) women,” and “breaking historical and religious customs.”


In 1985, as a freshman senator, he called for a four-year, $200 billion defense cut, including cancellation of 27 weapons systems, weapons and money that enabled us to win the Cold War, fight Desert Storm and finally liberate Iraq in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Then there is William Jefferson Clinton, whose wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton of Benghazi infamy, loathed the military. Slick Willie, unlike John McCain, avoided Vietnam service, preferring to go off to Oxford in England where he could bash America in bearded comfort. As journalist Roger Simon wrote in 1992:

The last time Bill Clinton was completely candid about the Vietnam draft was 23 years ago.


That’s when Clinton wrote a letter to an ROTC colonel thanking him for “saving me from the draft.”


Life was simple for Bill Clinton back then. He knew what he wanted and he knew how to get there: He wanted to avoid going to Vietnam. And he went to Oxford (though not Canada) to do so.


Now, life is not so simple for Clinton. He still knows what he wants: He wants to be president. But how to get there?


Sanitizing certain forgiveable but embarrassing parts of his past seems to be the quickest route.


And so in this campaign year, you have to have a road map to follow Clinton’s twists and turns on how he escaped the draft after he graduated from college.


Clinton began by stating that his avoiding the draft was “a fluke.”


But that was hardly the whole truth. Nor was it the whole truth when Clinton told reporters recently that he did not know of his uncle’s efforts to get him a Naval reserve assignment to keep him from being drafted.


According to The Los Angeles Times, the uncle’s efforts delayed Clinton’s pre-induction draft physical for almost 11 months, twice as long as normal.


Clinton applied to an Arkansas ROTC program, which he never ended up joining, and went off to Oxford, which kept him out of the draft for an extra two years.


At Oxford, Clinton wrote that letter of thanks to the ROTC colonel and said he was not willing to become a draft resister “for one reason: To maintain my political viability within the system. For years I have worked to prepare myself for a political life.”

John McCain would languish in a Hanoi prison. Bill Clinton would ponder his political viability from the comfort of an Oxford dorm. Donald Trump’s campaign venom towards John McCain in the heat of a political campaign cannot be excused. But at least President Trump is rebuilding the military John McCain loved, something the likes of Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, John Kerry and others and other Democrats would not have done. Their words and actions indict them and Meghan McCain’s pretending these are honorable men to single out Trump is not okay.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.               

The anger of Meghan McCain at the tone deaf and disrespectful remark during the 2016 campaign made by candidate Donald Trump regarding her war hero and patriot father Sen. John McCain that Trump preferred dead heroes was justified.

The politicization of the funeral was not, particularly when her remarks were spoken in front of those who have openly loathed the military and denigrated it and who did not and do not, unlike President Trump, share John McCain’s vision of the American military as the guardian of American and global freedom. John McCain’s military, gutted by the lip-biting Barack Hussein Obama, is being rebuilt by the president Meghan McCain castigated.

Obama’s disdain for the military and those who served in it is documented and legendary and he engaged in it to the point of pettiness, as demonstrated when he interrupted a military wedding in Hawaii so he could play some golf:

It certainly didn’t help his image when two Army captains, Captains Natalie Heimel and Edward Mallue Jr. ,  were told hours before their wedding that they had to move it so Obama could play through on the golf course they had selected as the nuptial site…


The president’s 15% approval rating among active-duty military isn’t due merely to the bad optics of such incidents. It’s the result of a defunded and dispirited military led by a disinterested commander in chief who, on Nov. 20, 2009, when Obama flew to Osan Air Base in South Korea to speak to American troops, were told, “You guys make a pretty good photo-op.”…


The military has watched a failed foreign policy in which a precipitate pullout from Iraq saw town after town that had been liberated at great expense in blood and treasure, starting in Fallujah, fall to jihadis and an Islamic State whose rise Obama was warned about but ignored. Many feel with some justification that their sacrifice was for naught, ignored by a president obsessed with keeping a campaign promise to withdraw from a land where so many lost their lives and limbs.


They watched as Obama traded five top Taliban leaders for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, whom many considered a deserter for abandoning his post and wandering off to find himself and the Taliban in the hills of Afghanistan. They also saw Obama let a Marine with post-traumatic stress syndrome, Andrew Tahmooressi, rot in a Mexican jail for the crime of missing his exit on his way to San Diego.


We have a smaller army than any time since before World War II and the smallest navy since 1917. Part of this drawdown has even included some 2,600 battlefield pink slips for captains and others who are serving or have served in Afghanistan.

Obama threw away the blood and treasure and sacrifice of American heroes like John McCain, American heroes he viewed as photo-ops for political purposes. Like Andrew Tahmooressi, Obama had no trouble leaving Marine Sergeant Amir Hekmati behind to languish in an Iranian prison:

A Marine veteran has been held captive in Iran since August 2011, when he was taken prisoner while visiting family and charged with spying. Does President Obama hear his plea for unconditional freedom?


With the exception of deserters like Bowe Bergdahl, those who put on a uniform and serve their country seem like afterthoughts to this administration, if they’re thought of at all.


Just ask Andrew Tahmooressi, the Marine sergeant allowed to languish 214 days in a Mexican jail for the crime of missing a highway exit. Or now, Amir Hekmati of Flagstaff, Ariz., a Marine vet who sits in an Iranian jail, having made the mistake of trying to visit his Iranian family. 


Hekmati has been locked up in Iran’s Evin Prison since he returned to his ancestral home 3-1/2 years ago to visit family. His parents left Iran when the mullahs took power in 1979. He did not think he would later be a victim of Iranian belligerence and American indifference, accused of being a CIA spy. He was first sentenced to death, but that sentence was overturned, and in a retrial he got 10 years in prison.


Unlike Bergdahl in Afghanistan, Amir served with genuine honor and distinction in Iraq, where Shiite militia groups were supplied with weapons and trained in their use by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. These weapons included sophisticated improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, designed to exploit vulnerabilities in U.S. military vehicles and increase American casualties.

Obama prefers deserters like Bowe Bergdahl to heroes like John McCain, trading terrorist Taliban leaders who slaughter Americans for traitors, welcoming and consoling Bergdahl’s parents at the White House while he ignored Bergdahl’s desertion in the heat of battle in Afghanistan

That Bergdahl was a deserter and a traitor should never have been in doubt, yet it was, partially due to President Obama sending National Security Adviser Susan Rice, who spread the Benghazi video lies on the Sunday talk show circuit, to appear on the June 1, 2014 broadcast of ABC’s “This Week” to tell two more lies, that Bergdahl was a good soldier and that trading five top Taliban commanders would not endanger U.S. security. As Breitbart reported:

Regarding the desertion allegations, she said Bergdahl, “served the United States with honor and distinction. And we’ll have the opportunity eventually to learn what has transpired in the past years.”


Rice also said that “assurances relating to the movement, the activities, the monitoring of those detainees [released in exchange for Bergdahl] give us confidence that they cannot and, in all likelihood, will not pose a significant risk to the United States. And that it is in our national interests that this transfer had been made.”

In fact, the Taliban trade of the terrorist equivalent of four-star generals jeopardized U.S. security and was done to exploit Bergdahl’s captivity to help Obama to get the worst of the worst out of Guantanamo to facilitate his campaign pledge of closing the facility. That Bergdahl was a deserter should never have been in doubt, judging by the universal condemnation of those who served with him. Investor’s Business Daily (IBD) noted that fact and editorialized that Obama feared a court-martial because it could lead to him being charged with providing material assistance to a terrorist enemy:

 Every one of the men who served with Bergdahl or tried to find him and who have spoken out publicly has said he was clearly a deserter.


Indeed, the uncontestable fact is that Bergdahl walked away from his post in a time of war, leaving his weapon and gear behind. He was not out for a walk to relieve stress or clear his head.


“Bowe Bergdahl deserted during a time of war, and his fellow Americans lost their lives searching for him,” former Sgt. Matt Vierkant told CNN. At least six soldiers died in operations looking for Bergdahl.


Fox News analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano has said that Obama dreads a court-martial for desertion, which is what the report might recommend, because questions regarding a trade providing material assistance to a terrorist group could be asked.


“We have a federal statute which makes it a felony to provide material assistance to any terrorist organization,” Napolitano said. “It could be money, maps, professional services, any asset whatsoever, (including) human assets.”

John McCain served with honor and distinction. Bowe Bergdahl did not. Meghan McCain had no unkind invective subtly directed towards President Obama, who loathed everything John McCain stood for in and out of the military. One remembers the dismissive tone Obama took towards McCain during the health care summit:

“People are angry,” McCain said. “We promised them change in Washington, and what we got was a process that you and I both said we would change.”


He called on Democrats to “go back to the beginning” and “remove all the special deals for the special interests and the favored few,” adding that he favors a system in which “geography does not dictate what kind of health care.”


A visibly annoyed Mr. Obama immediately responded, saying “we can spend the remainder of the time with our respective talking points going back and forth. We were supposed to be talking about insurance.”


“We’re not campaigning anymore,” he told McCain. “The election’s over.”

So much for a common interest and working with McCain to solve America’s problems. John McCain, as Meghan McCain noted, was proud of America. President Obama, upon election, immediately embarked on an apology tour and a vociferous campaign denouncing the very American exceptionalism John McCain believed in.

Meghan McCain also trashed Trump in front of Michelle Obama, who once famously noted during her husband’s 2008 campaign her disdain for America and its history:

Speaking in Milwaukee, Wis., on Monday, she said, “People in this country are ready for change and hungry for a different kind of politics and… for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.”


Greeted with rousing applause after making the comment in Milwaukee, Obama delivered an amended version of the speech later that day in Madison, Wis.


“For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country… not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change,” she said. “I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment.”

There in front of Meghan McCain was former Secretary of State John Kerry, who has opposed military preparedness and slandered the American forces in Vietnam as rapists and pillagers in congressional testimony:

Kerry, of course, first appeared on the national stage in 1971 when he testified, fresh from his swift-boat service in Vietnam, that U.S. troops had routinely “raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan…”


In 2005, he made our troops sound like terrorists when he accused them of “going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night (and) terrorizing kids, children, (and) women,” and “breaking historical and religious customs.”


In 1985, as a freshman senator, he called for a four-year, $200 billion defense cut, including cancellation of 27 weapons systems, weapons and money that enabled us to win the Cold War, fight Desert Storm and finally liberate Iraq in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Then there is William Jefferson Clinton, whose wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton of Benghazi infamy, loathed the military. Slick Willie, unlike John McCain, avoided Vietnam service, preferring to go off to Oxford in England where he could bash America in bearded comfort. As journalist Roger Simon wrote in 1992:

The last time Bill Clinton was completely candid about the Vietnam draft was 23 years ago.


That’s when Clinton wrote a letter to an ROTC colonel thanking him for “saving me from the draft.”


Life was simple for Bill Clinton back then. He knew what he wanted and he knew how to get there: He wanted to avoid going to Vietnam. And he went to Oxford (though not Canada) to do so.


Now, life is not so simple for Clinton. He still knows what he wants: He wants to be president. But how to get there?


Sanitizing certain forgiveable but embarrassing parts of his past seems to be the quickest route.


And so in this campaign year, you have to have a road map to follow Clinton’s twists and turns on how he escaped the draft after he graduated from college.


Clinton began by stating that his avoiding the draft was “a fluke.”


But that was hardly the whole truth. Nor was it the whole truth when Clinton told reporters recently that he did not know of his uncle’s efforts to get him a Naval reserve assignment to keep him from being drafted.


According to The Los Angeles Times, the uncle’s efforts delayed Clinton’s pre-induction draft physical for almost 11 months, twice as long as normal.


Clinton applied to an Arkansas ROTC program, which he never ended up joining, and went off to Oxford, which kept him out of the draft for an extra two years.


At Oxford, Clinton wrote that letter of thanks to the ROTC colonel and said he was not willing to become a draft resister “for one reason: To maintain my political viability within the system. For years I have worked to prepare myself for a political life.”

John McCain would languish in a Hanoi prison. Bill Clinton would ponder his political viability from the comfort of an Oxford dorm. Donald Trump’s campaign venom towards John McCain in the heat of a political campaign cannot be excused. But at least President Trump is rebuilding the military John McCain loved, something the likes of Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, John Kerry and others and other Democrats would not have done. Their words and actions indict them and Meghan McCain’s pretending these are honorable men to single out Trump is not okay.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.               



Source link

208494.jpg

Weissman Fake Dossier Knowledge Should Shut Mueller Down


While all legacy media and liberal eyes have been focused on Trump “fixer” Michael Cohen and Clintonista lawyer Lanny Davis’s lies about Trump payoffs to old girlfriends, few have focused on the activities of Andrew Weissmann, special counsel Robert Mueller’s chief deputy and investigator, who has a well deserved reputation as Mueller’s “pit bull.”

Weissmann, among his other jobs, was lead prosecutor in the trial of former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort.  Weissmann was also Mueller’s attorney on the ground, who oversaw the pre-dawn raid on Manafort’s home.  He was a key player in Mueller’s team of angry Democrat lawyers and donors bent on bringing down the Trump presidency based on false charges of Trump collusion with Russians meddling in the 2016 presidential election.  Problem is, as former deputy assistant attorney general Bruce Ohr’s closed-door testimony before Congress shows, Weissmann had full knowledge of the fake nature of the Steele dossier, which was a major predicate of the Russian witch hunt that became the Mueller probe.  Weissman knew there was collusion with the Russians and that it was among the DNC; the Clinton campaign; British agent Christopher Steele; Fusion GPS; the DOJ; the FBI; and, yes, Russian sources interested in upending the Trump presidency.

In the parlance of the day, this would make Weissmann an unindicted co-conspirator in the Deep State plot to bring Trump down.  He could have pulled the plug on the Mueller witch hunt but didn’t.  He could have pushed to go after Democrat collusion with Russia on the dossier but didn’t.

Bruce Ohr, the number-four official at the Justice Department as U.S. deputy associate attorney general and the highest ranking non-appointee, with an office a couple of doors down from Deputy A.G. Rod Rosenstein, kept Weissmann “in the loop” about the fake dossier and its journeys through the Deep State swamp.  Joining him were a myriad of other co-conspirators in a web of conspiracy and deceit so vast that Watergate trivia question Carl Bernstein may be right in a way he did not intend when he suggested that this whole matter may be bigger than Watergate.  It seems that only the DOJ janitor was not involved.

As Catherine Herridge of Fox News reports:

Embattled Justice Department official Bruce Ohr had contact in 2016 with then-colleague Andrew Weissmann, who is now a top Robert Mueller deputy, as well as other senior FBI officials about the controversial anti-Trump dossier and the individuals behind it, two sources close to the matter told Fox News.


The sources said Ohr’s outreach about the dossier – as well as its author, ex-British spy Christopher Steele; the opposition research firm behind it, Glenn Simpson’s Fusion GPS; and his wife Nellie Ohr’s work for Fusion – occurred before and after the FBI fired Steele as a source over his media contacts.  Ohr’s network of contacts on the dossier included: former FBI agent Peter Strzok; former FBI lawyer Lisa Page; former deputy director Andrew McCabe; Weissmann and at least one other DOJ official; and a current FBI agent who worked with Strzok on the Russia case.


Weissmann was kept “in the loop” on the dossier, a source said, while he was chief of the criminal fraud division.  He is now assigned to Special Counsel Mueller’s team.

Weissmann had to know that the dossier was fake and that its use in obtaining FISA warrants to conduct surveillance on Team Trump and provide a predicate for the Mueller witch hunt was a fraud committed upon the FISA court.  If he knew, Robert Mueller should have known.  Their proceeding with their “investigation” into Team Trump based on the fraudulently obtained FISA warrants is more than an abuse of power.  It is a criminal act.  Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett notes that Ohr’s testimony is damning in a criminal sense:

We learned today that James Comey’s FBI was far more corrupt than we ever knew.  We already knew that he used a false document from a wire they fire (ph).  But today we learned that Bruce Ohr told Comey and his confederates that this is a guy, Christopher Steele, who had said he was desperate to stop Donald Trump.  He was vagrantly (ph) anti- Trump.  They should have stopped right there in their tracks and said goodbye to Steele, thrown his dossier in the garbage.  But they didn’t care.  They moved ahead to launch this investigation of Trump to damage him and to spy on a Trump associate.


These people should be prosecuted for obstruction of justice, for perjury, abuse of power, and about three other felonies I can think of.  The law enforcers became the law breakers.  And where is the FISA court?  Why aren’t these judges holding these in criminal contempt?  Why didn’t they prosecute these people with indictments[?]

As Sean Hannity noted on his show Tuesday, Bruce Ohr was well aware of the fraudulent nature on the Steele dossier and the FISA applications based on them, a fact that he no doubt passed on when he was keeping everyone involved in this conspiracy “in the loop”:

“We did learn from Bruce Ohr today that he understood the Steele dossier would never have been accepted in a court of law, 65 pages of notes and text of meetings between him and Steele … so much to cover, it might take the whole hour,” Hannity said.  “There is no doubt that a conspiracy to commit fraud multiple times against FISA judges did take place.”


“Everyone who signed off on this FISA request signed off on fraudulent documents, and they knew they were fraudulent,” he said.

Christopher Steele himself could not confirm the dossier’s claims.  Even the corrupt James Comey said they were “salacious and unverified.”  So if they could not be used in a court of law, why were they used in FISA applications to authorize surveillance of Team Trump?  Because it was a means to their desired end – the destruction of the Trump presidency, which also meant lying to the court about its sourcing and financing.  Andrew Weissman knew this, and no doubt Robert Mueller knows this, too.

When the FBI “fired” Steele for leaking to the press, a back channel through Ohr and his wife Nellie was created:

“It was obvious early on that Bruce Ohr was the backchannel for Steele,” said a congressional source with direct knowledge of the testimony.  “The FBI was aware of potential bias of Nellie Ohr and they knew about Steele’s bias early on but never included it in the FISA application.  It’s astonishing the FBI kept the information from the court: the fact that there was a back channel after they terminated Christopher Steele and also Fusion GPS, knowing Ohr’s wife was working there.”

Not only was Bruce Ohr a conduit for the dossier information, but he and his wife also profited handsomely from their involvement in its production and dissemination:

Fusion GPS and its co-founder have not responded to Fox News’ questions for this story, or previous reports.  While Fusion GPS financial records were the subject of a lawsuit, and are not public, sources told Fox News that Nellie Ohr received “multiple payments” in 2016 from Fusion GPS, and the amounts were “not small change.”

This is corruption of the highest order at the highest level.  Nellie Ohr worked for Fusion GPS and was paid by Fusion GPS as her high-ranking DOJ husband was colluding with a British agent and Russian sources to bring down Trump.

Also working with, if not for, Fusion GPS was one Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump, Jr. at Trump Tower.  Manafort’s home, hotel, and office were raided at the behest of Mueller, whose team admitted in a court filing that the Veselnitskaya meeting was a motive for the Manafort raid, managed by Andrew Weissmann.

Never interviewed by Mueller’s team, Veselnitskaya did meet with Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson before and after the Trump Tower meeting, suggesting it was a setup to entrap Team Trump as part of the Deep State coup against Trump:

[H]ours before the Trump Tower meeting on June 9, 2016, Fusion co-founder and ex-Wall Street Journal reporter Glenn Simpson was with Veselnitskaya in a Manhattan federal courtroom, a confidential source told Fox News.  Court records reviewed by Fox News, email correspondence and published reports corroborate the pair’s presence together.  The source told Fox News they also were together after the Trump Tower meeting.

Weissmann is a partisan hack and Mueller thug who sent an email to acting attorney general Sally Yates, one of those who signed the fraudulent FISA applications, congratulating her on her for refusing to defend in court President Trump’s travel ban:

A senior member of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigative team said he was in “awe” of former acting Attorney General Sally Yates the day she was fired for refusing to defend President Trump’s controversial travel ban, according to emails obtained by a conservative watchdog group.


Andrew Weissmann, a veteran Justice Department prosecutor who is one of Mueller’s top lieutenants on the special counsel probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election, sent a Jan. 30 email to Yates that appeared to laud her for standing up to Trump.


“I am so proud and in awe,” Weissmann wrote, according to emails obtained by Judicial Watch through a Freedom of Information Act request.  “Thank you so much.”

He also attended Hillary Clinton’s 2016 almost victory party, probably shedding a tear over her loss and fueling his desire to overturn Trump’s surprising victory.

Weissmann knew all about the Deep State coup starting with but not stopping with the fake Fusion GPS dossier.  As he sits with Robert Mueller, looking to see if Trump paid any Russian’s unpaid parking tickets, it is obvious that the Mueller witch hunt is just that.  It is an enterprise interested not in true Russian collusion and meddling, but in a conspiracy to bring down the Trump presidency.

Bruce Ohr’s closed-door testimony is enough to justify shutting it down.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.

While all legacy media and liberal eyes have been focused on Trump “fixer” Michael Cohen and Clintonista lawyer Lanny Davis’s lies about Trump payoffs to old girlfriends, few have focused on the activities of Andrew Weissmann, special counsel Robert Mueller’s chief deputy and investigator, who has a well deserved reputation as Mueller’s “pit bull.”

Weissmann, among his other jobs, was lead prosecutor in the trial of former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort.  Weissmann was also Mueller’s attorney on the ground, who oversaw the pre-dawn raid on Manafort’s home.  He was a key player in Mueller’s team of angry Democrat lawyers and donors bent on bringing down the Trump presidency based on false charges of Trump collusion with Russians meddling in the 2016 presidential election.  Problem is, as former deputy assistant attorney general Bruce Ohr’s closed-door testimony before Congress shows, Weissmann had full knowledge of the fake nature of the Steele dossier, which was a major predicate of the Russian witch hunt that became the Mueller probe.  Weissman knew there was collusion with the Russians and that it was among the DNC; the Clinton campaign; British agent Christopher Steele; Fusion GPS; the DOJ; the FBI; and, yes, Russian sources interested in upending the Trump presidency.

In the parlance of the day, this would make Weissmann an unindicted co-conspirator in the Deep State plot to bring Trump down.  He could have pulled the plug on the Mueller witch hunt but didn’t.  He could have pushed to go after Democrat collusion with Russia on the dossier but didn’t.

Bruce Ohr, the number-four official at the Justice Department as U.S. deputy associate attorney general and the highest ranking non-appointee, with an office a couple of doors down from Deputy A.G. Rod Rosenstein, kept Weissmann “in the loop” about the fake dossier and its journeys through the Deep State swamp.  Joining him were a myriad of other co-conspirators in a web of conspiracy and deceit so vast that Watergate trivia question Carl Bernstein may be right in a way he did not intend when he suggested that this whole matter may be bigger than Watergate.  It seems that only the DOJ janitor was not involved.

As Catherine Herridge of Fox News reports:

Embattled Justice Department official Bruce Ohr had contact in 2016 with then-colleague Andrew Weissmann, who is now a top Robert Mueller deputy, as well as other senior FBI officials about the controversial anti-Trump dossier and the individuals behind it, two sources close to the matter told Fox News.


The sources said Ohr’s outreach about the dossier – as well as its author, ex-British spy Christopher Steele; the opposition research firm behind it, Glenn Simpson’s Fusion GPS; and his wife Nellie Ohr’s work for Fusion – occurred before and after the FBI fired Steele as a source over his media contacts.  Ohr’s network of contacts on the dossier included: former FBI agent Peter Strzok; former FBI lawyer Lisa Page; former deputy director Andrew McCabe; Weissmann and at least one other DOJ official; and a current FBI agent who worked with Strzok on the Russia case.


Weissmann was kept “in the loop” on the dossier, a source said, while he was chief of the criminal fraud division.  He is now assigned to Special Counsel Mueller’s team.

Weissmann had to know that the dossier was fake and that its use in obtaining FISA warrants to conduct surveillance on Team Trump and provide a predicate for the Mueller witch hunt was a fraud committed upon the FISA court.  If he knew, Robert Mueller should have known.  Their proceeding with their “investigation” into Team Trump based on the fraudulently obtained FISA warrants is more than an abuse of power.  It is a criminal act.  Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett notes that Ohr’s testimony is damning in a criminal sense:

We learned today that James Comey’s FBI was far more corrupt than we ever knew.  We already knew that he used a false document from a wire they fire (ph).  But today we learned that Bruce Ohr told Comey and his confederates that this is a guy, Christopher Steele, who had said he was desperate to stop Donald Trump.  He was vagrantly (ph) anti- Trump.  They should have stopped right there in their tracks and said goodbye to Steele, thrown his dossier in the garbage.  But they didn’t care.  They moved ahead to launch this investigation of Trump to damage him and to spy on a Trump associate.


These people should be prosecuted for obstruction of justice, for perjury, abuse of power, and about three other felonies I can think of.  The law enforcers became the law breakers.  And where is the FISA court?  Why aren’t these judges holding these in criminal contempt?  Why didn’t they prosecute these people with indictments[?]

As Sean Hannity noted on his show Tuesday, Bruce Ohr was well aware of the fraudulent nature on the Steele dossier and the FISA applications based on them, a fact that he no doubt passed on when he was keeping everyone involved in this conspiracy “in the loop”:

“We did learn from Bruce Ohr today that he understood the Steele dossier would never have been accepted in a court of law, 65 pages of notes and text of meetings between him and Steele … so much to cover, it might take the whole hour,” Hannity said.  “There is no doubt that a conspiracy to commit fraud multiple times against FISA judges did take place.”


“Everyone who signed off on this FISA request signed off on fraudulent documents, and they knew they were fraudulent,” he said.

Christopher Steele himself could not confirm the dossier’s claims.  Even the corrupt James Comey said they were “salacious and unverified.”  So if they could not be used in a court of law, why were they used in FISA applications to authorize surveillance of Team Trump?  Because it was a means to their desired end – the destruction of the Trump presidency, which also meant lying to the court about its sourcing and financing.  Andrew Weissman knew this, and no doubt Robert Mueller knows this, too.

When the FBI “fired” Steele for leaking to the press, a back channel through Ohr and his wife Nellie was created:

“It was obvious early on that Bruce Ohr was the backchannel for Steele,” said a congressional source with direct knowledge of the testimony.  “The FBI was aware of potential bias of Nellie Ohr and they knew about Steele’s bias early on but never included it in the FISA application.  It’s astonishing the FBI kept the information from the court: the fact that there was a back channel after they terminated Christopher Steele and also Fusion GPS, knowing Ohr’s wife was working there.”

Not only was Bruce Ohr a conduit for the dossier information, but he and his wife also profited handsomely from their involvement in its production and dissemination:

Fusion GPS and its co-founder have not responded to Fox News’ questions for this story, or previous reports.  While Fusion GPS financial records were the subject of a lawsuit, and are not public, sources told Fox News that Nellie Ohr received “multiple payments” in 2016 from Fusion GPS, and the amounts were “not small change.”

This is corruption of the highest order at the highest level.  Nellie Ohr worked for Fusion GPS and was paid by Fusion GPS as her high-ranking DOJ husband was colluding with a British agent and Russian sources to bring down Trump.

Also working with, if not for, Fusion GPS was one Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump, Jr. at Trump Tower.  Manafort’s home, hotel, and office were raided at the behest of Mueller, whose team admitted in a court filing that the Veselnitskaya meeting was a motive for the Manafort raid, managed by Andrew Weissmann.

Never interviewed by Mueller’s team, Veselnitskaya did meet with Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson before and after the Trump Tower meeting, suggesting it was a setup to entrap Team Trump as part of the Deep State coup against Trump:

[H]ours before the Trump Tower meeting on June 9, 2016, Fusion co-founder and ex-Wall Street Journal reporter Glenn Simpson was with Veselnitskaya in a Manhattan federal courtroom, a confidential source told Fox News.  Court records reviewed by Fox News, email correspondence and published reports corroborate the pair’s presence together.  The source told Fox News they also were together after the Trump Tower meeting.

Weissmann is a partisan hack and Mueller thug who sent an email to acting attorney general Sally Yates, one of those who signed the fraudulent FISA applications, congratulating her on her for refusing to defend in court President Trump’s travel ban:

A senior member of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigative team said he was in “awe” of former acting Attorney General Sally Yates the day she was fired for refusing to defend President Trump’s controversial travel ban, according to emails obtained by a conservative watchdog group.


Andrew Weissmann, a veteran Justice Department prosecutor who is one of Mueller’s top lieutenants on the special counsel probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election, sent a Jan. 30 email to Yates that appeared to laud her for standing up to Trump.


“I am so proud and in awe,” Weissmann wrote, according to emails obtained by Judicial Watch through a Freedom of Information Act request.  “Thank you so much.”

He also attended Hillary Clinton’s 2016 almost victory party, probably shedding a tear over her loss and fueling his desire to overturn Trump’s surprising victory.

Weissmann knew all about the Deep State coup starting with but not stopping with the fake Fusion GPS dossier.  As he sits with Robert Mueller, looking to see if Trump paid any Russian’s unpaid parking tickets, it is obvious that the Mueller witch hunt is just that.  It is an enterprise interested not in true Russian collusion and meddling, but in a conspiracy to bring down the Trump presidency.

Bruce Ohr’s closed-door testimony is enough to justify shutting it down.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.



Source link