Where Was the Senate Foreign Relations Committee When Obama Promised Putin He Would Have “More Flexibility” to Negotiate with Russia After His Re-election?

TRUMP - cyberhacking was under Obama and his administration did nothing

by Diane Rufino, July 27, 2018

Republican and Democratic Senators questioned Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, on Wednesday regarding President Trump’s foreign policy. On its face, it appears that our legislators are concerned as to what exactly is Trump’s policy – particularly with Russia.  But the more likely explanation is that they just want to embarrass and frustrate him in his role as president of the United States, and to plant the seed in the minds of the American people and maybe even the world audience that he doesn’t know what he is doing.

Secretary Pompeo testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where lawmakers eager and hungry to learn more about what Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin talked about in their two-hour private meeting last week in Helsinki, grilled him. It’s killing them that they don’t know exactly how Donald Trump’s brain works and how he continues to find success after success in his agenda and diplomacy.

As the Hill reported a day earlier: “Members of the Foreign Relations panel will ask whether Trump agreed to make any changes to international security agreements or if he gave any commitments about the future of the U.S. military presence in Syria. They will ask whether Trump pressed Putin on Russian violations of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty or on easing its nuclear posture toward U.S. allies in Europe. [And they will also ask] whether the president discussed relaxing sanctions approved by Congress last year that Trump reluctantly signed into law. (Although the Foreign Relations and Banking committees are considering additional penalties on Russia).”

Some Senators commented that the hearing would not only focus on the Helsinki summit, but also on North Korea (what is the status of diplomatic talks?), Trump’s decision in May to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal (and what will his next moves be), Trump’s trade deals (the scope of those trade deals; will American farming be harmed?; will there likely be a trade war?), and his boldness in criticizing our European allies (which they fear will erode trust within NATO).

But most believe the true target of the hearing was Trump’s private meeting with Putin. They are still angry: (1) first, that Trump chose to go ahead and meet with Putin even though Congress warned him not to go, and (2) second, that he was unable to profess complete confidence and trust, while the country and the world watched, in the American Intelligence Community as it relates to Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Let us go back and look at the reason President Trump met with Russian President Vladimir Putin. It was not to scold him for meddling in our election, it was not to capitalize on an opportunity to threaten Russia about future attempts at meddling, and it was not to establish a relationship between the two administrations based on mistrust, disrespect, or skepticism. It was not a pissing contest, a chance to beat their chests, or a game of showmanship. The meeting was about establishing a relationship between the two world leaders and opening a respectable and productive dialogue between the two administrations for the sake of world peace and stability. It was about re-establishing a relationship that had chilled and drifted for many years. Some believe the relationship between the US and Russia was at an all-time low. President Trump was not about to accept that. In his mind and in his judgement, the meeting would concentrate on the positive and on achieving mutual benefits. “Constructive dialog between the United States and Russia affords us the opportunity to open pathways towards peace and stability in our world….”  These were the words he used in Helsinki.

He also made very clear his diplomatic mission when he told reporters, with Putin at his side:  “I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace than to risk peace in pursuit of politics. As president, I will always put first what is best for American and what is best for the American people.”

And so, at the press conference in Helsinki, President Trump chose not to make Russian meddling in our election (which, by every single account was minor – misleading political ads on Facebook and other social media – and which had absolutely no impact on the outcome of the election) a source of major contention or even a sore spot in what he hoped would be a new start for bilateral relations between the two great superpowers – the two countries that together, control over 90% of all the world’s nuclear weapons.

As Liz Peeks of FOX News commented: “Did anyone really expect him [Trump] to declare the Russian leader a liar on global TV? What would have been the point of traveling to Helsinki and arranging a summit between the world’s two biggest nuclear powers, only to scuttle the chance at a new and improved relationship? It wasn’t going to happen, and in fact Trump hinted at that beforehand, when he told reporters not to expect “a Perry Mason” moment.

He was also not going to give the duplicitous and scheming Democrats the “bone” that they wanted – a statement of confidence in the handling of the Russian interference investigation by the US Intelligence agencies. He knows how Democrats weasel around the truth; he knows that they would someone bring it up, purportedly as fact, that “Trump admitted that he has confidence in the findings of the FBI and DOJ that there was collusion between the Russians and his campaign during the 2016 election.”  The truth is that he has absolutely no reason to be confident in that investigation or in the affairs nefariously initiated within the intelligence agencies against him and his campaign.

That is why, at that moment in Helsinki, when asked by a reporter whether he holds Putin liable for any complicity in the 2016 US presidential election, President Trump was unable to make the statement that those at home hoped he would. He chose not to be confrontational. He chose not to be adversarial.

Jeff Mason, of Reuters asked President Trump:  “Mr. President, you tweeted this morning that it’s US Foolishness, stupidity and the Mueller probe that is responsible for the decline in US Relations with Russia. Do you hold Russia at all accountable for anything in particular? If so, what would you consider them that they are responsible for?”

Trump responded:

Yes, I do. I hold both countries responsibility. I think the United States has been foolish. I think we have all been foolish. We should have had this dialogue a long time ago, a long time frankly before I got to office. I think we’re all to blame. I think that the United States now has stepped forward along with Russia. We’re getting together and we have a chance to do some great things, whether it’s nuclear proliferation in terms of stopping, we have to do it — ultimately, that’s probably the most important thing that we can be working on.

I do feel that we have both made some mistakes. I think that the probe is a disaster for our country. I think it’s kept us apart. It’s kept us separated. There was no collusion at all. Everybody knows it. People are being brought out to the fore. So far that I know, virtually, none of it related to the campaign. They will have to try really hard to find something that did relate to the campaign. That was a clean campaign. I beat Hillary Clinton easily and, frankly, we beat her. And I’m not even saying from the standpoint – we won that race.  It’s a shame there could be a cloud over it. People know that. People understand it. The main thing — and we discussed this also — is zero collusion. It has had a negative impact upon the relationship of the two largest nuclear powers in the world. We have 90 percent of nuclear power between our two countries. It’s ridiculous what’s going on with the probe. It’s ridiculous.

The line “I think we’re all to blame” is the statement that immediately stood out to everyone during the press conference. According to CNN, of course, Trump’s statements amounted to an unprecedented refusal by a US president to believe his own intelligence agencies over the word of a foreign adversary and drew swift condemnation from across the partisan divide. Disgraced former FBI head, John Brennan, moronically characterized Trump’s comments as “high crimes and misdemeanors” and accused Trump of treason. And Congressional Democrats, as well as some Congressional Republicans, and advisers and commentators from both sides, have accused Trump of making a colossal diplomatic blunder by not using the opportunity at Helsinki to scold Putin.

Jonathan Lemire, a reporter with AP, asked Trump: “Just now President Putin denied having anything to do with the election interference in 2016. Every US intelligence agency has concluded that Russia did. My first question for you, sir, is who do you believe? My second question is would you now with the whole world watching tell President Putin — Would you denounce what happened in 2016 and would you warn him to never do it again?’

Trump answered in these words:

So let me just say that we have two thoughts. You have groups that are wondering why the FBI never took the server. Why haven’t they taken the server? Why was the FBI told to leave the office of the democratic national committee? I’ve been wondering that. I’ve been asking that for months and months and I’ve been tweeting it out and calling it out on social media. Where is the server? I want to know, where is the server and what is the server saying? With that being said, all I can do is ask the question. My people came to me, Dan Coats came to me and some others and said they think it’s Russia.

I have President Putin. He just said it’s not Russia. I will say this. I don’t see any reason why it would be, but I really do want to see the server. But I have confidence in both parties. I really believe that this will probably go on for a while, but I don’t think it can go on without finding out what happened to the server. What happened to the servers of the Pakistani gentleman that worked on the DNC? Where are those servers? They’re missing. Where are they? What happened to Hillary Clinton’s emails? 33,000 emails gone — just gone. I think in Russia they wouldn’t be gone so easily. I think it’s a disgrace that we can’t get Hillary Clinton’s 33,000 emails. So I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that president Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today. And what he did is an incredible offer. He offered to have the people working on the case come and work with their investigators, with respect to the 12 people. That’s an incredible offer. Thank you.

Putin asked to comment:

I’d like to add something to this. After all, I was an intelligence officer myself. And I do know how dossiers are made up. Just a second. That’s the first thing. Not the second thing. I believe that Russia is a democratic state and I hope you’re not denying this right to your own country, you’re not denying that United States is democracy. Do you believe the United States is a democracy? And if so, if it is a democratic state, then the final conclusion in this kind of dispute can only be delivered by a trial, by the court. Not by the executive, by the law enforcement.

For instance, the concord company that is brought up is being accused, it’s being accused of interference, but this company does not constitute the Russian state. It does not represent the Russian state. And I brought several examples before.

Well, you have a lot of individuals in the United States — take George Soros, for instance, with multibillion capitals, but it doesn’t make him — his position, his posture the posture of the United States. No, it does not. It’s the same case. There is the issue of trying a case in the court and the final say is for the court to deliver.

We are now talking about the individuals and not about particular states. And as far as the most recent allegations is concerned about the Russian intelligence officers, we do have an intergovernmental treaty. Please do send us the request. We will analyze it properly and we’ll send a formal response. As I said, we can extend this cooperation, but we should do it on a reciprocal basis. Because we would wait our Russian counterparts to provide us access to the persons of interests for us who we believe can have something to do with intelligence service.

Let’s discuss the specific issues and not use the Russia and US Relationship as a loose change for this internal political struggle.

Given what Trump has been subjected to since he has been a candidate for president, and especially being told that the FBI has a file on him colluding with Russia in the days leading up to his inaugural, the never-ending witch-hunt by Special Counsel Mueller, the raiding of offices and prosecutorial coercion of anyone related to him, and his own experience of being set up, framed, and relentlessly persecuted by the fatally-flawed entirely politically-biased American “intelligence community,” is it any wonder that given the choice, at the press conference, of which side to have greater trust and confidence in – a choice between ex-KGB agent Vladimir Putin and the rogue American intelligence agencies – that he preferred a more diplomatic answer?  As Sidney Powell of The Daily Caller wrote: “At that moment in Helsinki, Trump must have felt like the choice between Scylla and Charybdis. Either would destroy him, and no matter what he said, the Left would shriek the sky is falling yet again.”

Anyway, on board Air Force One, returning to Washington, President Trump sought to clarify his position at the summit, which he understood was not well-presented. He tweeted: “As I said today and many times before, “I have GREAT confidence in MY intelligence people.” However, I also recognize that in order to build a brighter future, we cannot exclusively focus on the past — as the world’s two largest nuclear powers, we must get along!”

In assessing the success or lack of success of the summit, from a diplomatic point of view, taking into consideration the overall goal Trump sought to achieve, we would have to conclude that it indeed was a success. Paraphrasing what Ms. Connie Hanna wrote in her July 24 article, “Trump Report Card,” …..  What we saw from President Trump at the Helsinki summit was a successful example of American diplomacy, by a skilled and gracious national leader. The thawing of relations, as we were fortunate to witness, is certainly preferable to tension and conflict any day of the week!!

Nevertheless, with yesterday’s hearing, the Senate was clearly letting the American know that it has little confidence in Trump’s ability to conduct foreign policy, while at the same time throwing a collective hissy fit that he isn’t sharing details with them.

So, what ended up happening at Wednesday’s hearing?

Basically, Secretary clashed with Senators, from both sides, who really wanted to accuse President Trump of not knowing what he is doing and in particular, as they believe the Helsinki summit proved, of being soft on Putin. Luckily, the man who actually knows and who is privy to Trump’s policy agenda, firmly and strongly stood up for the president.

For example, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn), characterized Trump’s approach to diplomacy as a “ready, fire, aim” approach – as if he “wakes up every morning and makes it up as he goes.”  Pompeo responded that “this administration has been tougher than previous administrations” on Putin and that Trump plays a direct role in taking aggressive actions against Russia.

At one point he wanted to know why President Obama was never interrogated over his whispered message to Putin: “I’ll have more flexibility after the election.” [Of course, comparison to Obama only enraged the Committee].

In giving examples of how Trump and the White House are tough on Russia, Pompeo outlined a variety of measures taken by the Trump administration against Russia, including making lethal defensive weapons available to Ukraine (a move, by the way, that was resisted by the Obama administration), and the expulsion of dozens of Russian operatives from the US following the poisoning of a former agent. He also explained that the US condemns Russia’s annexation of Crimea and will never recognize the legitimacy of that annexation. In fact, as he said, there will be no relief of Crimea-related sanctions by the Trump administration until Russia returns control of the Crimean peninsula to the Ukraine.

Pompeo told the Committee that Trump threatened “severe consequences” for any future Russian meddling in America’s elections, even though his posture and words at Helsinki may not have reflected that position. And he reminded its members of President Trump’s very public opposition during the NATO talks to the planned Nord Stream 2 pipeline from Russia to Germany, which he says poses national security risks to European countries by increasing their dependence on Russia.

Secretary Pompeo wasn’t going to be bullied by Sen. Corker, or the Committee: “Senator, I just disagree with most of what you have said. Somehow there is this idea that this administration is free-floating. This is President Trump’s administration. Make no mistake who’s fully in charge of this, and directing each of these activities that is causing Vladimir Putin to be in a very difficult place today.”

Pompeo was also asked a few questions regarding the status of negotiations with North Korea and the status of plans for denuclearization of the North Korean peninsula.  He answered: “We are engaged in patient diplomacy, but we will not let this drag out.”  And he also admitted, or confirmed, that North Korea continues to produce “fissile material” (needed for nuclear weapons) but would not confirm publicly whether or not Kim Jong Un has decided to continue to advance his country’s nuclear program.

All in all, Secretary Mike Pompeo stood his ground, took on the Senators, strongly defended President Trump and his administration’s policies abroad, and emphasized that Trump knows exactly what he is doing and that his approaches have been and continue to be successful for the good of the United States and for the world.

Now, the question that many are asking is this: Where was that same concern when President Obama was caught, luckily for the American people. on an open microphone, delivering a secret message to Putin – that he would have “more flexibility after the (2012) election” to negotiate with Russia?  Where was the grilling on Capitol Hill?  Where were the accusations of being soft on Russia?

We all remember this incident.

On March 27, 2012, while President Obama was taking part in a global nuclear security summit in South Korea, and he was caught on tape (open mic) asking Russian President (at the time) Dmitry Medvedev for “space.”  He was leaning over to Medvedev, and appearing to speak more secretly to him, said: “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.” He wanted this message to be conveyed to Vladimir Putin, which Medvedev assured he would do. His response was: “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.”

Last year, Rep. Francis Rooney (R-FL) was asked by Katy Tur of MSNBC if he thought Trump would be strong enough to stand up to Russia.  He said he was and then attempted to remind her of the “open mic” incident. She said she had no idea what he was talking about. He brought her up to speed.  As he said to Tur, in his opinion, the message President Obama was conveying was this: “Tell Putin I’ll have more flexibility to give him what he wants after the re-election.” Roomey further commented: “No one really ever pushed the president on what he meant like that, but I can only imagine for a thug like Putin, that it would embolden him.”

What did President Obama mean when he said “more flexibility”? Was he referring to his ability to deal with missile defense issues?  Did he intend to hint that he could negotiate more leniently or favorably to Russia without having to worry about the consequences at election time??

The language “more flexibility (when election consequences aren’t a concern)” should have peaked intense interest with our lawmakers.  More than anything Trump said, these words by Obama, to any reasonable person, would imply that he was willing to ignore or surrender US interests.

Here is a video of President Obama whispering to Medvedev over an open mic:   https://youtu.be/XsFR8DbSRQE

Where was the concern when President Obama broke with protocol and bowed to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in 2009 at the G2 Summit?  Diplomatic protocol indeed decrees that presidents bow to no one, as it is a sign of weakness. Bowing is forbidden. In fact, there was great concern at the time of this outrageous “break in protocol,” particularly as rumors circled of his leanings toward Islam and his including Islamic groups as advisers in his administration. Even The Washington Times wrote that Obama’s greeting “belittled the power and independence of the United States” because he was “bending over to show greater respect to Islam.”

POLITICS G20 202428

President Obama also bowed later that year to Japanese Emperor Akhito and his wife. Dick Cheney, then the recently ex-Vice President, weighed in, in an interview with Politico: “There is no reason for an American president to bow to anyone. Our friends and allies don’t expect it, and our enemies see it as a sign of weakness.”

If there was such a significant and noteworthy break in diplomatic protocol, particularly to the leader of a Muslim country and to the leader of a country that once waged relentless and inhumane war against the United States, why didn’t the Senate Foreign Relations Committee follow up with questioning?

Also, where is the concern over the revelation, by Putin himself, that an operative (one Putin believes was arranged by the US) was sent to Russia to secretly donate to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Putin revealed this information in response to a question by Jeff Mason, a Reuters reporter. Mason asked:  “Why should Americans and why should President Trump believe your statement that Russia did not intervene in the 2016 election given the evidence that US Intelligence agencies have provided?  Will you consider extraditing the 12 Russian officials that were indicted last week by a US Grand jury?”

This was Putin’s response:

As to who is to be believed, who is not to be believed: you can trust no one. Where did you get this idea that President Trump trusts me or I trust him? He defends the interests of the United States of America and I do defend the interests of the Russian Federation. We do have interests that are common. We are looking for points of contact.

There are issues where our postures diverge and we are looking for ways to reconcile our differences, how to make our effort more meaningful. We should not proceed from the immediate political interests that guide certain political powers in our countries. We should be guided by facts. Could you name a single fact that would definitively prove the collusion? This is utter nonsense — just like the president recently mentioned. Yes, the public at large in the United States had a certain perceived opinion of the candidates during the campaign. But there’s nothing particularly extraordinary about it. That’s usual thing.

President Trump, when he was a candidate, he mentioned the need to restore the Russia/US relationship and it’s clear that certain parts of American society felt sympathetic about it and different people could express their sympathy in different ways. Isn’t that natural? Isn’t it natural to be sympathetic towards a person who is willing to restore the relationship with our country, who wants to work with us?

We heard the accusations about it. As far as I know, this company hired American lawyers and the accusations doesn’t have a fighting chance in the American courts. There’s no evidence when it comes to the actual facts. So we have to be guided by facts, not by rumors.

Now, let’s get back to the issue of this 12 alleged intelligence officers of Russia. I don’t know the full extent of the situation. But President Trump mentioned this issue. I will look into it.

So far, I can say the following. Things that are off the top of my head. We have an existing agreement between the United States of America and the Russian Federation, an existing treaty that dates back to 1999. The mutual assistance on criminal cases. This treaty is in full effect. It works quite efficiently. On average, we initiate about 100, 150 criminal cases upon request from foreign states.

For instance, the last year, there was one extradition case upon the request sent by the United States. This treaty has specific legal procedures we can offer. The appropriate commission headed by Special Attorney Mueller, he can use this treaty as a solid foundation and send a formal, official request to us so that we could interrogate, hold questioning of these individuals who he believes are privy to some crimes. Our enforcement are perfectly able to do this questioning and send the appropriate materials to the United States. Moreover, we can meet you halfway. We can make another step. We can actually permit representatives of the United States, including the members of this very commission headed by Mr. Mueller, we can let them into the country. They can be present at the questioning.

In this case, there’s another condition. This kind of effort should be mutual one. Then we would expect that the Americans would reciprocate. They would question officials, including the officers of law enforcement and intelligence services of the United States whom we believe have something to do with illegal actions on the territory of Russia. And we have to request the presence of our law enforcement.

For instance, we can bring up Mr. Browder in this particular case. Business associates of Mr. Browder have earned over $1.5 billion in Russia. They never paid any taxes. Neither in Russia nor in the United States. Yet, the money escapes the country. They were transferred to the United States. They sent huge amount of money, $400 million as a contribution to the campaign of Hillary Clinton. Well, that’s their personal case. It might have been legal, the contribution itself. But the way the money was earned was illegal. We have solid reason to believe that some intelligence officers, guided these transactions. So we have an interest of questioning them. That could be a first step. We can extend also it. Options abound. They all can be found in an appropriate legal framework.

Donald Trump, in everything he has done, with every act as president, with every one of his campaign promises and initiatives, and with every word he speaks as president, seeks to put American first as well as its businesses, its people, and its safety and to Make America Great Again.  Obama, clearly was a different president. He often apologized for America, apologized for its people, apologized for our history, undermined our interests, and made enemies out of ordinary American citizens over radical Islamists and other terrorist organizations.

Yet Congressional leaders refuse to accept his sincerity of purpose and his mastery in getting the job done. Always seeing the glass half empty, they continue to treat him like a school child, a bumbling buffoon.

Oh, the double standard.

Trump needs to fail before he earns their approval. He needs to fail before members of Congress will be willing to work with him rather than spend every waking moment resisting him.

To be fair to this story and to President Trump (after all, no one else is), and for the record, here is a refresher on some of the abuses of the Intelligence agencies under President Obama, Trump’s history with the American Intelligence Community and the Deep State entrenched there, and his experience of being set up, framed, and relentlessly persecuted by those who refuse to acknowledge his rightful election to the presidency:  [The following is taken from The Daily Caller article written by Sidney Powell, “Trump Has Been Set Up-Framed and Relentlessly Persecuted by the American Intelligence Community,” dated July 19, 2018]

  • Former CIA Director John Brennan, appointed by President Obama in 2013, had the CIA spying on members of Congress, and indeed, the entire Senate Intelligence Committee. One wonders if the mentality of J. Edgar Hoover has become firmly entrenched in the FBI, where American Intelligence gathers “information” on members of Congress and even the president and his family, to use as a means of coercion to get those members to conform to what the government expects. Chuck Schumer once described our intelligence community this way: “Cross our intelligence community and they have six ways from Sunday to pay you back.” That’s not an endorsement of trust, but rather of fear. (Perhaps Schumer knows more about that than he lets on). Brennan, by the way, is – and has been – an intense Trump-hater.
  • Then there’s Director of National Intelligence (DNI), James Clapper, the second Trump-hater, who recently departed from his position at the top of our national intelligence community. Clapper is the guy who had the NSA collecting all possible data on all Americans and then lied to Congress about it. Spying on Americans, and collecting their personal and private information is the most egregious use of our intelligence agencies. Mr. Powell refers to these agents as “petty men” who “peep about to find [themselves] dishonorable graves.”
  • Even more important, according to Mr. Comey’s own memos, which were leaked to the New York Times, combined with Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice’s “note to self” within minutes of Trump’s inauguration, we know that Brennan, Clapper, Obama, Comey, Rice, counter-terrorism advisor Lisa Monaco, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and Vice President Biden, met in the Oval Office just before Comey went to brief the president-elect. Not only did they decide to limit information about Russia to be shared with the incoming team, they dispatched Comey to set up Mr. Trump for the media explosion of the entire false narrative and Steele dossier.
  • On January 6, 2017, on instructions from Clapper, Comey met one-on-one with Mr. Trump in Trump Tower. Comey “executed the session just as [he] had planned.” He dropped the bombshell of only the “salacious” details of the Steele dossier. He ran to his car to write down the details of the conversation, then he reported to Clapper and possibly Brennan, one of whom leaked it to CNN. Comey’s briefing provided the very “news hook” they all knew the media wanted to run with the existence of the unverified, Clinton-bought-and-paid-for dossier.
  • That remarkable setup, by the highest members of our “intelligence community” and Obama himself, sparked the media firestorm of the Trump-Russia-collusion lie that has besieged the Trump presidency to this day. Indeed, that was its purpose, if not to trap Trump into action that Democrats could label as “obstruction of justice” and then use that as grounds for impeachment.
  • Don’t forget Peter Strzok — the FBI’s lead investigator for the “intelligence community”— hardly the epitome of trustworthiness. Strzok is the self-avowed despiser of Trump and any possible Trump supporter. Strzok is the epicenter of the Clinton email “investigation,” the Russia narrative, and the Mueller team until last July. Discoveries of his innumerable venomous expressions of hatred for the president “clouded” the Clinton email investigation and compelled his removal from the Special counsel team. Even more egregious conduct compelled his physical removal from the FBI.
  • And then there is this: James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, and Sally Yates, aided by others in the “intelligence community” more recently including Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, obtained multiple FISA warrants to spy on members of the Trump team. All those applications were based primarily on the Clinton-bought-and-paid-for Steele dossier of lies.
  • We can’t forget Susan Rice. Susan Rice, Obama’s national security advisor, who tripled the unmaskings of Americans during 2016 — grossly abusing the government’s surveillance apparatus to target the political opposition.
  • Sally Yates, of course, used those unmaskings to set up General Michael Flynn who was simply doing his job. She got him fired from his new position as President Trump’s national security advisor, had FBI Agent Strzok ambush Flynn in an interview, and McCabe may have helped tee him up with false allegations for Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
  • And there’s more. As the chief judge of the super-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court found in an opinion heavily redacted but unclassified last year, the Obama/Comey/FBI’s rank abuses of raw surveillance data of Americans extend back to 2015 (when Trump announced—if not further). The court found egregious Fourth Amendment violations by the FBI and that it had given private contractors (probably Fusion GPS—Steele dossier creators—and Clinton-connected CrowdStrike) wrongful unlimited and unsupervised access to that data. The court so distrusted the FBI itself that it took access away from it, and NSA Director Admiral Rogers proceeded to eliminate the use of “about queries” completely.

Again, consider the position President Trump found himself, when asked by journalists whether he has complete confidence in our intelligence agencies. And in that reflection, ask yourselves if his response was worthy of the rebuke he got from Congress and worthy of the treacherous comments from potentially true traitors like John Brennan.

- 2018 (condo, July) (3)

References:

Alexander Bolton, “Pompeo Faces GOP Grilling on Russia, North Korea ,” The Hill, July 24, 2018. Referenced at:  http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/398703-pompeo-faces-gop-grilling-on-russia-north-korea

VIDEO:  Obama open mic slip: “After my election I have more flexibility.”  Referenced at:  https://youtu.be/XsFR8DbSRQE

Tim Harris, “MSNBC Host Can’t Remember When Obama Promised Putin Flexibility,” Real Clear Politics, February 20, 2017.  Referenced at:  https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/02/20/msnbc_host_cant_remember_when_obama_promised_putin_flexibility.html

Greg Re, “Pompeo Fights Back After GOP Sen. Corker Hits Trump for ‘Purposeful’ sowing of ‘Doubt and Distrust’,” FOX News, July 25, 2018.  Referenced at:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/25/pompeo-says-us-wont-recognize-russias-crimea-annexation.html

Sidney Powell, ”Trump Has Been Set Up-Framed and Relentlessly Persecuted by the American Intelligence Community,” The Daily Caller, July 19, 2018.  Referenced at: http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/19/trump-has-been-set-up-framed-and-relentlessly-persecuted-by-the-american-intelligence-community/    [Sidney Powell is a former federal prosecutor]

Liz Peeks, “Outrage over Trump, Putin Helsinki meeting – Did We Expect President to Call Putin a Liar on Global TV?,” FOX News, July 17, 2018.  Referenced at:  http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/07/17/liz-peek-trump-critics-predictably-melt-down-over-helsinki-summit.html

Staff, “What Trump and Putin Actually Said in Helsinki (TRANSCRIPT),” Foreign Policy News (FP News), July 16, 2018.  Referenced at:  https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/07/18/heres-what-trump-and-putin-actually-said-in-helsinki/

Jennie Neufeld, “Read the Full Transcript of the Helsinki Press Conference,” Vox, July 17, 2018.  Referenced at:  https://www.vox.com/2018/7/16/17576956/transcript-putin-trump-russia-helsinki-press-conference

Kenneth Rapoza, “What Reporters in Helsinki Asked Trump and Putin,” Forbes, July 16, 2018.  Referenced at:  https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2018/07/16/what-reporters-in-helsinki-asked-trump-and-putin/#65ce0d093e25

Jeremey Diamond, “Trump Sides with Putin Over US Intelligence,” CNN, July 16, 2018.  Referenced at:  https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/16/politics/donald-trump-putin-helsinki-summit/index.html

Constance Hanna, “Trump Report Card,” The Daily Compass, July 24, 2018. [Connie Hanna does a weekly update on President Trump in The Daily Compass]

Advertisements

Government Targeting Political Opponents (an American Story, thanks to Barack Obama)

 

MAXINE WATERS - protesters burn flag outside Waters' Office

by Diane Rufino, July 21, 2018

On Thursday, July 19, supporters of Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters showed up at her Los Angeles office and put on a very troubling and unpatriotic display. I suppose their conduct was either in line with their diminished intelligence, their natural tendency to thug-like, violent behavior, or the indoctrination of the Thug Queen herself, Maxine Waters. At one point in the video taken of that protest, one lady not only parroted the vile hatred that Waters has been spewing but she also sounded exactly like her. It was disturbingly unsettling.

Waters and her ilk are the lowest of the low, and should have no place in the kind of country that was established for close-knit communities predicated on the mutual respect for our country’s ideals, our collective desire to get along, and our intelligent duty to conduct ourselves as decent members of society and to support the Rule of Law.

Last week, the constitutionally conservative group known as Oath Keepers called on members to show up outside the controversial Congresswoman’s South Los Angeles office for a “protest against Maxine Waters’ incitement of terrorism, and a stand FOR ICE and the Border Patrol.”  Supporters of Waters (ie, the demonstrators) showed up with the intent of countering that protest, but police at the protest site told the Los Angeles Times that the group had notified authorities that it no longer planned to hold the demonstration, in order to keep the peace.

Rather than go back home, the Pro-Waters crowd, which numbered a few dozen and included union workers, church leaders, South Los Angeles residents and members of activist groups, many holding signs that read “Resist!,” proceeded to demonstrate and display the hatred that Rep. Waters so often uses her platform to encourage and incite. At one point, a pick-up truck drove by, and believing it to belong to a member of the Oath Keepers, the demonstrators gathered around it, opened the doors and terrorized the driver, and then snatched his American flag from the truck bed.  No doubt, they were offended by a real American, a conservative. They proceeded to stomp on the flag and then set it on fire. They chanted “Black Power” and shouted “America was never great” A few even yelled: “This is not the American flag, this is their flag.”

…….  Not exactly the kind-of crowd you look forward to enjoying a 4th of July picnic with.
MAXINE WATERS - protesters stopping pick up truck and stealing man's flag outside Waters' Office

Ever since the election of Donald Trump, an election he won fair and square, and against an avalanche of behind-the-scenes crooked dealings, alliances, pay-offs, abuses of power, government-DNC collusion, and a phony Russian scandal, Democrats and others on the left have become unhinged and have shown their opposition in ways that exceed those allowed by the First Amendment, that offend all rules of common decency, that frustrate the traditional university goals of robust intelligent debate, and that violate our civil and criminal laws.  We see the rhetoric of hate, we see threats of violence against conservatives and against Republican members of Congress and members of Trump’s administration, we see Republican state and federal leaders and members of Trump’s administration (and their families) being shouted and threatened out of restaurants, movie theaters, and ball games, we see violence against conservative speech by Antifa and hooded thugs on campuses, we’ve witnessed the intentional shooting of Republican Congressmen (last year’s Congressional softball game), we’ve learned of the arrest of at least one Antifa member who amassed a cache of bomb-making materials and guns and who had a Manifesto outlining his mission to kill conservatives, we hear the most vile of rants and name-calling from members of the Entertainment Industry against Trump and against conservatives, we hear talk-show hosts and actors call for the rape and sodomization of members of Trump’s family and administration, we watch in disbelief as Democratic leaders in Congress become increasingly unhinged and unpatriotic in their messages and in their conduct, and we see Black Lives Matter protestors, including the likes of Al Sharpton and other race-baitors and poverty pimps, calling for the slaughter of members of law enforcement.

We see a common thread….   All of these groups, all of these so-called people belonging to the Democratic Party.

What should happen ideally is that all of these types of people, including hoards of illegal immigrants and Middle-Eastern refugees, be moved into the communities and neighborhoods of Democratic legislators, Democratic politicians, Democratic Party leaders, activist judges, Hollywood actors and actresses, liberal talk-show hosts, and editors, producers, columnists, reporters, and commentators of the mainstream media. If these people want to empower such anti-social, violent, psychotic, unpatriotic, dis-believing, dependent, entitled, abhorrent, crazed, unstable, mentally-imbalanced, irresponsible, law-breaking, terrorist individuals, then at least they should know what it’s like to have them living among them.

Anyway, I digress from my main point which is that Obama targeted political opponents, using the full force of the federal government –  a government absolutely prohibited, under the Bill of Rights, from enacting any law or policy that infringes on one’s freedom of speech, freedom to the press (including every blogger and writer who “publishes” in any way information and commentary), right to own and bear firearms (“Shall Not Be Infringed!”), freedom of conscience, right of assembly, and freedom to be safe from unreasonable government searches and seizures (to be safe and secure in one’s home and in one’s private affairs; “to be king of one’s castle”).

Right after Barack Obama took office as president, in early April 2009, he had Attorney General Janet Napolitano and the Department of Homeland Security re-draft guidelines as to who the “real threat” to America is.  This was done without anyone paying any particular attention to it and was done while the country was still shielding their eyes, as if they were looking at the face of the new “messiah.”  According to President Obama, his advisors, and his administration in general, it was no longer radical Islam that posed the greatest threat to our country, but rather, the very people he made fun of in one of his appearances in Pennsylvania — those who “cling to their religion and their guns.”  The DHS document outlining this threat was titled “RIGHTWING EXTREMISM: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” and it was issued by the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (within DHS).  You can read the entire document yourself at:  https//fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf.  In it, the Department of Homeland Security explains that people like Tea Party groups, white conservatives. Veterans, Christians, Second-amendment supporters, and the like pose a serious threat to the country (and, as mentioned, to Obama’s administration — as he is a black man). These “rightwing extremists,” the report says, are those who will produce white supremacists, will oppose Obama’s policies, will present opposition to his policies on immigration, and in general, will try to organize against him. Because they support the second amendment, the Obama administration labeled them as dangerous, likely to organize and use violence, and put them on the DHS watch list.

Can you even wrap your mind around the sanity of the federal government in deeming God-fearing, law-abiding, Constitution-loving, patriotic conservative Americans to be dangerous to the country, moreso than the likes of those who slaughtered 3000 innocent Americans on 9/11, who have kidnapped and beheaded several of our journalists and contractors, and who have planned and carried out the many attacks on our military personnel and citizens both here and abroad ???   I certainly can’t. A government that can even think of doing so is simply evil and unconstitutionally ambitious.

In embracing Obama’s policy and attempting to sell it to state and local law enforcement and to the country in general, Secretary Janet Napolitano issued the following press release on April 15, 2009, which was posted on the Department of Homeland Security website: “The primary mission of this department is to prevent terrorist attacks on our nation. The document on Right-Wing Extremism sent last week by this department’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis is one in an ongoing series of assessments to provide situational awareness to state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies on the phenomenon and trends of violent radicalization in the United States. I was briefed on the general topic, which is one that struck a nerve as someone personally involved in the Timothy McVeigh prosecution.”  Turning the government against its law-abiding citizens is the very definition of tyranny.

We associate governments targeting, harassing, drumming up false charges, imprisoning, and killing political opponents with the likes of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party, with Josef Stalin and the Communist Party, with Pol Pot (Cambodia) and the Communist Khmer Rouge Party, with Pinochet in Chile, with Mao Zedong in China, with Mehmet Talat Pasa in Armenia, with Idi Ami in Uganda, and with the leadership in countries like Rwanda, Bosnia, and Darfur.  We all know that the government rounded up Japanese-Americans and put them in internment camps after the attack on Pearl Harbor. With intimate knowledge of and sensitive information about Pearl Harbor having been obtained by Japanese spy, Takeo Yoshikawa, and transmitted ultimately to Admiral Yamamoto in Japan to finalize plans of the attack, the government could not trust Japanese-Americans to be loyal to the United States over Japan. The camps were dismantled after Japan’s defeat.  We also all know of the McCarthy era and the political movement to weed out Communists and Communist spies from positions of power and access to sensitive information, but that was arguably for reasons of true national security. The relationship between the United States and Russia has become adversarial and competitive for control and influence in the world….  It was an era of intense geopolitics. Every move by Russia (the Soviet Union) became a matter of freedom and tyranny… a matter of individuals being able to live freely or to be controlled by a regime of fear and violence. The two countries emerged as the worlds’ two greatest superpowers, with the ability of annihilating millions of people with their nuclear capability (Russia obtaining the technology thru its espionage activities in the US) and each viewed the other as the enemy and an absolute threat to national security.

No one would ever associate modern day United States with political persecution, yet that’s exactly what happened under the Obama administration. Barack Obama deemed anyone whose views were contrary to his and his administration or whose views and background, and potential, posed a risk to his political agenda as “security threats” to the United States, posing a likely threat of acts of domestic terrorism. Is this not mind-blowing or what??  Paranoid kings of England acted in this manner, paranoid emperors of Rome acted in this manner, Stalin and Hitler acted in this manner, and the list goes on…..  those who think differently pose a threat to those in power. Yes, conservatives think the right to have and bear arms is a right meant to be essentially free from government control (except for mental illness and a violent history). Conservatives believe government control of firearms and ammunition, and talk of confiscation are the hallmarks of a tyrant (like King James II and King George III of England),.  Yes, conservatives believe that a sovereign nation without border control, ie, control over immigration, is not sovereign but merely a temporary state ultimately doomed to mob control. Yes, conservatives believe in the vitality and importance of our very first amendment – the rights to religious liberty, speech, press, assembly, and petition. They believe that a person is endowed with the right to think freely and to think as dictated by his or her religious values, his degree of intelligence and understanding, and as his heart and gut instruct (the “right of conscience”) and that government has no place to coerce thought, speech, and conduct that violates that right of conscience.  Yes, conservatives believe that a woman may have freedom over her body and her fertility (her ability to bring forth new life), but they certainly don’t believe the right is absolute and  includes the right to kill a fully-developed, living child that for the unfortunate reason that nature dictates (not yet been born), it hasn’t yet been able to take its first breath outside the mother’s womb.  Yes, conservatives believe in a limited government. They believe in the government created by the Constitution, which by its terms and provisions is certainly one meant to be limited. They believe a free country means that its citizens are able to freely exercise their God-given rights without over-regulation and intrusion by the government.  They believe in the rights of the individual and not the collective, a distinction made very clear when our country and our government system were established. They believe that a government that forcibly takes from some in order to benefit others, and then relies on those “dependents” as a crucial voting block, is an unconstitutional government – one well on its way to being a socialist government. Yes, conservatives believe in personal responsibility, lower taxes, free markets, and unburdened property rights.  And yes, conservatives believe that federal court judges and Supreme Court justices are limited in their roles on the bench; they are limited by the words, meaning, intent, and historical context of the Constitution and by the plain meaning and legislative intent of federal laws. In other words, they must be strict constructionists, textualists, and originalists, for the Constitution is a statement of the people’s intention for their government, permanently documented and ratified by state conventions specifically organized for that purpose. The only way to change the terms of government and to “evolve” with times is to take advantage of the amendment process outlined in Article V.  Conservatives  are strongly opposed to the notion of a “living, breathing, document” which gives judges and justices full reign to mold and transform the Constitution as they see fit and which allows them to by-pass the democratic process where the people dictate how fast society “progresses.”

Democrats, and especially Obama, believe in the complete opposite. The difference between Obama and other Democratic presidents is that he deceptively, secretly, covertly put programs and policies in place to subdue the opposition (conservatives) and as we are learning now, to deprive them the office of the presidency, in order to move full speed on his progressive, liberal (un-American) policies.  Besides his blatant abuse of the IRS to target conservatives, his interference in investigation and potential prosecution of Hillary Clinton for her intentional abuse of national security procedures by using a personal unsecured email server for official emails, and his creation of a “fake” dossier and his illegal abuse of the FISA warrant policy to spy on the Trump campaign, Judicial Watch has just uncovered documents that show that President Obama attempted to institute gun control stealthily by going after ammunition instead of guns. (It has just filed suit in the district court in DC to compel the ATF to produce its records on the matter).  The first shots of the American Revolution, as most of are unaware, were fired not because of taxation but because King George instructed his man in Massachusetts, General Gage, to locate and destroy all the colonists’ ammunition. And as most are unaware, it was this despotic act that prompted one of my favorite founding fathers, Patrick Henry, to exclaim to the Virginia Convention that famous night on March 23, 1775 at St. John’s Church in Richmond:

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year?  Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house?  Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?  Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.  There is no retreat but in submission and slavery!  Our chains are forged!  Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston!  The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace.. But there is no peace. The war is actually begun!  The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms!  Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle?  Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?  Forbid it, Almighty God!  I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

With that speech, he defended the resolutions he had submitted for Virginia to build and train its militia (one in every county), to be ready to fight the British.

It is one thing to think differently, politically, for that is how citizens advance their issues and concerns in government, but it is another thing to use the government against the people because they think differently. And it is also one thing to think compromise is necessary and always a good thing, when sometimes it’s the very way we erode important foundations.  As Richard Dawkins once said:  “When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong.”  If the colonists had accepted Britain’s treatment of them, if they had engaged in endless compromise with its leaders, then America would never have pushed for, and fought for, its independence. Compromise breeds complacency.

If we look back on how President Obama insidiously targeted conservatives, we should take note of how he identified certain traditional “American” values and views and tried to explain them away as being dangerous to the country.  Hitler and Goebbels would have been proud.

The assessment, “RIGHTWING EXTREMISM: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” is prefaced by the following “Key Findings” by the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (DHS):

Key Findings:

(U//LES)  The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues.  The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.

— (U//LES)  Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts.  Nevertheless, the consequences of a prolonged economic downturn—including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability to obtain credit—could create a fertile recruiting environment for rightwing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past.

— (U//LES)  Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.

(U//FOUO)  The current economic and political climate has some similarities to the 1990s when rightwing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs, and the perceived threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers.

— (U//FOUO)  During the 1990s, these issues contributed to the growth in the number of domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups and an increase in violent acts targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks, and infrastructure sectors.

— (U//FOUO)  Growth of these groups subsided in reaction to increased government scrutiny as a result of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and disrupted plots, improvements in the economy, and the continued U.S. standing as the preeminent world power.

(U//FOUO)  The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.

It then explains:

(U)  Current Economic and Political Climate

(U//FOUO)  DHS/I&A assesses that a number of economic and political factors are driving a resurgence in rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization activity.  Despite similarities to the climate of the 1990s, the threat posed by lone wolves and small terrorist cells is more pronounced than in past years.  In addition, the historical election of an African American president and the prospect of policy changes are proving to be a driving force for rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization.

— (U)  A recent example of the potential violence associated with a rise in rightwing extremism may be found in the shooting deaths of three police officers in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on 4 April 2009.  The alleged gunman’s reaction reportedly was influenced by his racist ideology and belief in antigovernment conspiracy theories related to gun confiscations, citizen detention camps, and a Jewish-controlled “one world government.”

(U)  Exploiting Economic Downturn

(U//FOUO)  Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures.  Anti-Semitic extremists attribute these losses to a deliberate conspiracy conducted by a cabal of Jewish “financial elites.”  These “accusatory” tactics are employed to draw new recruits into rightwing extremist groups and further radicalize those already subscribing to extremist beliefs.  DHS/I&A assesses this trend is likely to accelerate if the economy is perceived to worsen.

(U)  Historical Presidential Election

(U//LES)  Rightwing extremists are harnessing this historical election as a recruitment tool.  Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use.  Rightwing extremists are increasingly galvanized by these concerns and leverage them as drivers for recruitment.  From the 2008 election timeframe to the present, rightwing extremists have capitalized on related racial and political prejudices in expanded propaganda campaigns, thereby reaching out to a wider audience of potential sympathizers.

 — (U//LES)  Most statements by rightwing extremists have been rhetorical, expressing concerns about the election of the first African American president, but stopping short of calls for violent action.  In two instances in the run-up to the election, extremists appeared to be in the early planning stages of some threatening activity targeting the Democratic nominee, but law enforcement interceded.

(U)  Revisiting the 1990s

 (U//FOUO)  Paralleling the current national climate, rightwing extremists during the 1990s exploited a variety of social issues and political themes to increase group visibility and recruit new members.  Prominent among these themes were the militia movement’s opposition to gun control efforts, criticism of free trade agreements (particularly those with Mexico), and highlighting perceived government infringement on civil liberties as well as white supremacists’ longstanding exploitation of social issues such as abortion, inter-racial crimes, and same-sex marriage.  During the 1990s, these issues contributed to the growth in the number of domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups and an increase in violent acts targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks, and infrastructure sector.

(U)  Illegal Immigration

(U//FOUO)  Rightwing extremists were concerned during the 1990s with the perception that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs through their willingness to work at significantly lower wages.  They also opposed free trade agreements, arguing that these arrangements resulted in Americans losing jobs to countries such as Mexico.

(U//FOUO)  Over the past five years, various rightwing extremists, including militias and white supremacists, have adopted the immigration issue as a call to action, rallying point, and recruiting tool.  Debates over appropriate immigration levels and enforcement policy generally fall within the realm of protected political speech under the First Amendment, but in some cases, anti-immigration or strident pro-enforcement fervor has been directed against specific groups and has the potential to turn violent.

(U//FOUO)  DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremist groups’ frustration over a perceived lack of government action on illegal immigration has the potential to incite individuals or small groups toward violence.  If such violence were to occur, it likely would be isolated, small-scale, and directed at specific immigration-related targets.

— (U//FOUO)  DHS/I&A notes that prominent civil rights organizations have observed an increase in anti-Hispanic crimes over the past five years.

(U)  Legislative and Judicial Drivers

(U//FOUO)  Many rightwing extremist groups perceive recent gun control legislation as a threat to their right to bear arms and in response have increased weapons and ammunition stockpiling, as well as renewed participation in paramilitary training exercises.  Such activity, combined with a heightened level of extremist paranoia, has the potential to facilitate criminal activity and violence.

— (U//FOUO)  During the 1990s, rightwing extremist hostility toward government was fueled by the implementation of restrictive gun laws—such as the Brady Law that established a 5-day waiting period prior to purchasing a handgun and the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act that limited the sale of various types of assault rifles—and federal law enforcement’s handling of the confrontations at Waco, Texas and Ruby Ridge, Idaho.

The assessment also informs: “The information is provided to federal, state, local, and tribal counterterrorism and law enforcement officials so they may effectively deter, prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist attacks against the United States.  Federal efforts to influence domestic public opinion must be conducted in an overt and transparent manner, clearly identifying United States Government sponsorship.”

Through the DHS and its directive (“Rightwing Extremism…..”), the Obama administration was almost “deputizing state and local law enforcement” to do the government’s bidding.  We truly weren’t a “free country” during those years.

Clearly, the “assessment” by the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (DHS) was meant to identify the threat to OBAMA and to his administration and his agenda, rather than to the United States and to its security and its citizens.  The identification of Rightwing groups and individuals as potential “domestic terrorists” is predicated wholly and improperly on a difference of political opinion and political viewpoint. It is as clear a violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of Free Speech and Freedom of Conscience as it gets.

Anyone who can connect dots can see that Obama used the full forces of the federal government to target, harass, discriminate against, and to neutralize Tea Party groups and other conservatives. It is why he used the IRS to block Tea Party groups from organizing (they were denied, exclusively, the ability to organize as a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt groups for political purposes), to go out and harass and excessively audit them, and why he had Dinesh D’Souza thrown in jail.  With this in mind, it’s not hard to see why he did everything possible to divide the country into groups violently opposed to conservatives and then to use government agencies to work silently to make sure Hillary Clinton won the 2016 election and to make sure Trump did not. It’s why they are still fighting Trump (and the conservatives in general). It’s become violent.

So far, President Trump reversed that policy and put the focus back on radical Islamists. He has not turned the tables on Democrats and their venomous, vile, and violent ilk and put them under the microscope by Homeland Security. But maybe he should.  Democrats have become a dangerous and obstructive force in our country – spewing and inciting hatred, division, and violence. They care little for political discourse so it isn’t about free speech; rather, it’s about getting Donald Trump out of office in any conceivable way possible, even if it has to be by creating a false and fictitious charge or by bombarding the American audience with a false narrative. It’s strictly a power ploy, designed to make useful idiots out of useless ones (Democrat voters) for the purpose of denying political power to the legitimate party, the Republican Party (duly elected by the people, thru the Electoral System; a government “by the people”) and transferring it, by a political coup, to the Democratic Party elite.

Trump is far too honorable and responsible of a president to ever consider turning the government against its citizens because unlike Obama, who supposedly taught Constitutional Law and an “expert on the Constitution,” Trump has an uncanny understanding of it and a deep respect for it.  He also understands and respects that the government belongs to the people, through their collective judgement and their action at the ballot box, and not to the puppet masters of a Political Party.

Here is another example of an approach where compromise cannot be sought. One approach is clearly wrong.

We must never again allow an administration to forcibly, or even tacitly, silence the voice of political opposition.  We must ever remain vigilant.

“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.” President Harry Truman spoke these words on August 8, 1950 in a special message to Congress on the Internal Security of the US.

Liberty, and the US Constitution, must always be those gems worth fighting for.  Both belong to the people; both are the birthright of every American.

 

References:

“Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” (An Assessment), Office of Intelligence and Analysis, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), April 7, 2009 –  https://fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf

Paulina Dedaj, “Maxine Waters Supporters Burn American Flag Outside California Rep’s Office,” FOX News, July 20, 2018.  Referenced at:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/19/counterprotesters-burn-american-flag-outside-office-maxine-waters.html

Carlos Granda, “Oath Keepers Calls Off Protest Outside Maxine Waters’ Los Angeles Office,” ABC7 News, July 20, 2018.  Referenced at:  http://abc7.com/politics/oath-keepers-calls-off-protest-at-maxine-waters-office/3789197/

“Statement by U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on the Threat of Right-Wing Extremism,” Department of Homeland Security, April 15, 2009.  Referenced at:  https://www.dhs.gov/news/2009/04/15/secretary-napolitanos-statement-right-wing-extremism-threat

A “Very Stable Genius” is in the House!

by Diane Rufino, July 18, 2018

I created the following meme to show my inherent trust in the leadership of President Trump. While the mainstream media, the entire leadership of the Democratic Party, the deranged Democratic members of Congress, and certain “politically-disguised” members of the Republican Party categorically refuse to see anything positive in the leadership of President Trump and refuse to acknowledge anything positive that he has done, it must be the people who voted for him and their sane, powerful voices who must drown out these morons and who must by-pass the media and express their faith and trust in him. He has dealt with extraordinarily powerful forces that fight him every minute of every day, on every occasion, and using every possible outlet and forum. He has been dealing with this from day one.

MEMEE - Very Stable Genius in the Houes

Donald Trump has the moral fiber to keep his promises and to show profound love and loyalty to his country, its Constitution, its laws, and to all its people. No other president has worked so hard to honor his campaign promises and to work so hard on the national and international scene to do what is right and fair for the United States, for its business interests, and for its people. There is nothing in his track record as president to suggest that he has anything but the best and strongest interests at stake for the country or that he will even entertain the possibility that other countries can continue to intimidate or take advantage, in any way, shape, or form, the United States or its people.

Liberals and doubters may bash President Trump for his words at the Helsinki meeting with Russian leader Vladimir Putin (because to expect anything else would be unimaginable) but for those like myself who put their trust in this most honorable of US presidents, I choose to believe it when he says “I’m a very stable genius.”

Until he proves otherwise, I will continue to support him and give him the benefit of the doubt. I just wish, for once, Democrats and the mainstream media would try doing the same.

Looks Like Whoopi Goldberg Put On Her “Thinking Cap” Again

WHOOPI GOLDBERG - Pussy Hat

by Diane Rufino, June 28, 2018

On this morning’s airing of “The View” (the show with cackling, often deranged, liberal women), Whoopi Goldberg addressed Supreme Court Anthony Kennedy’s resignation and her concerns over President Trump’s chance to pick a replacement for him. Apparently that news sent her into a frenzy. Using the opportunity to advocate for abortion rights (of which a woman has complete control over her right to terminate for any reason, and at any time, the life growing inside her), she launched into a tirade: “Get out of my vagina! If you take away my right away from me, I got a problem with that…..  You don’t want people to take your guns?  So get out of my behind. Get out of my vagina. Get Out.”

Let’s do a reality check, Whoops, shall we?  The Bill of Rights EXPRESSLY recognizes the right to have and bear arms in the Second Amendment. It’s historical roots are deep and firmly grounded. Let me look where the Bill of Rights recognizes the right of a woman to have complete control over her reproductive capability….  Hold on…  I’m looking…    Wait…  I’m still looking…..

It’s not there. A liberal (VERY LIBERAL, and socially progressive) Supreme Court pulled some legal magic and slight of hand to find that right. And let’s not kid ourselves. The facts and history behind the case (including commentary by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and later by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg) show that the decision was made essentially for two reasons: (1) to give women the flexibility they need to compete as equals to men in the workforce (a pesky pregnancy or an unwanted child can certainly get in the way!); and (2) to deal with all the unwanted pregnancies that would overwhelm our social programs.  The right to an abortion wasn’t so much about a right as it was about a solution.

Whoopi has nothing to fear from a conservative court.  A woman’s right to an abortion will not be taken away. It is too firmly entrenched in our society, much like the Miranda Warning is and much like the concept of the “Wall of Separation” is, both of which are legal fictions. And it is a very effective solution to an obvious social problem, albeit a heinous and unconscionable one. But what a conservative court might do is question the wisdom, the immorality, and the inhumanity of the broad right granted to women. A future court might address the conflict in such a policy when our very founding documents identify the right to life as one of man’s greatest inalienable rights. How do we reconcile that core American ideal with the right of a woman (and then a doctor) to terminate what is clearly a human life?  A conservative court might, one day, put strict limits on the right to an abortion so that two lives enjoy the rights guaranteed here in America.

The whole of politics doesn’t have to come down to the security of a woman’s unfettered and unlimited so-called right to terminate a life growing inside her. And it shouldn’t.  And I would like to think that women are capable of engaging in the political arena on issues that are far more important. They used to care about issues such as education, taxes, jobs, safety; they used to care about the issues that made it easier to raise their families, own a home, have job security, send their kids to college, save money, and be able to retire comfortably.

Whoopi has a limited understanding of the Constitution, which I suppose is a whole lot better than most Democrats, who have no understanding of it. I’m glad the organizers of the Women’s March in DC last January encouraged marchers to wear those funky Vagina caps (“pussy hats”). Putting those bright pink caps on their heads covered up the real pink matter that usually does one’s thinking – the brain. And it was totally fitting that they did so because the women (if you can even call some of them that) at that march DON’T think with their brains. Instead, they are only capable of thinking with their vaginas.

Whoopi showed us once again how true that is.

Whoopi attended the Women’s March in DC. She wore a pussy hat. And even more, she wore a shirt announcing how “nasty” she is.

Wow, women sure have progressed over the years.

We May Be Great, But Can We Also Be Good?

- 2018 (gray shirt, April 19, 2018)   by Diane Rufino, June 25, 2018

I’ve been really troubled by all the hate and all the vitriol and all the race-baiting coming from the likes of Maxine Waters and coming from those in Hollywood, in the Entertainment Industry, and in the mainstream media. The harassment, the inciting of harassment (which we all know will lead to violence, just as it did on the softball field last year at the annual Congressional softball game), the targeting, the vilification, the name-calling, the death wishes and the wishes for physical harm, the treating of fellow Americans with contempt and without due respect is uncalled for and uncivilized. We are Americans and are supposed to be tolerant and respectful. We are supposed to be the example to the world of how freedom liberates the human soul and spirit and inspires one to great heights. We are not supposed to be the example of how a country predicated on human freedom is ultimately destructive of itself.

President Trump is without a doubt making the changes and implementing the policies that are making America Great Again. When America is great, the opportunities are passed on to ALL Americans. So let’s not pretend that Trump is not good for this country.

Yes, we are becoming Great Again. We can all take pride in that. We thought that after the Bush and Obama years, it would almost be impossible to see the country turn around so quickly and successfully. But Trump has made it happen.

The greater challenge, as it turns out, may be to put our differences aside, put our grievances, and put our personal agendas aside, and treat each other once again with love and respect. In other words, can we be good again?

In that spirit, I made the following meme.
MEME- America is Becoming Great Again, but Can She Become Good Again

IMMIGRATION: A Pawn in the Bigger Political Game

IMMIGRATION - Illegal Children Separated from Parents, and crammed in detention center (Breitbart Texas)

(Picture Credit:  Breitbart Texas, 2014)

by Diane Rufino, June 21, 2018

In 2014, Breitbart Texas (reported Brandon Darby) broke the story of how child border crossers were being crammed into detention centers and facilities by the Obama administration, revealing a number of exclusive photos that went completely unmentioned by the establishment media. The pictures were posted on twitter.

Mr. Darby is an embedded journalist, unlike so-called journalists from the mainstream media, unlike members of Hollywierd, unlike most of DC’s Democratic members of Congress, and unlike almost every progressive/liberal/Democratic opponent of immigration laws. He spends at least 10 days every month at the border in Texas, at the ICE detention centers, and also in Mexican territory, including areas controlled by the vicious and violent drug cartels.

I don’t know about you, but I’ll put more credence in the articles and reports written by Darby and Breitbart Texas, as well as their posts, than on anything put out by the mainstream media or any misleading comments and false accusations hurled by Democratic legislators. I’ll listen to those who use facts rather than those who project on mere emotion. Laws are emotion-free; laws are neutral and serve the nation’s best interests (rather than the interests of foreigners). And of course, we are a nation of laws. That, in the end, is what separates us from Mexico and what separates us from the countries and regimes of South and Central America.  Europe is finally beginning to understand what President Trump means when he says that a nation that can’t control its borders is not a nation at all, or won’t be for very long.

Brandon Darby and Breitbart Texas posted pictures of children being packed into a cement room at one of the detention centers (“holding facilities”) back in 2014, during the Obama administration. No one cared. It was not worthy of being mentioned by the mainstream media.  That picture, by the way, just happens to be the one being circulated as being taken currently at the Texas detention center, hoping to trick Americans into believing this is what Trump is doing.  Back in 2014, Brandon Darby and Breitbart Texas posted pics of the chainlink partitions in the holding facilities at the border (ie “the cages”) with children of illegals inside them. Again, no one cared. And again, it was not worthy of being mentioned by the mainstream media. These “cage” pictures all of a sudden are now the top priority of the mainstream media.

All of a sudden, US journalists – and Democrats – decide that they care about what migrants experience at the border after not giving a shit for many years.

But Democrats and the mainstream media would have you believe – they WANT you to believe, they NEED you to believe – that the “separation” issue (the separation of children from their illegal parents) is a unique consequence caused by President Trump’s horribly inhumane immigration policy. They trust that an ignorant American population will be moved by emotion rather than use their God-given brains. They know that liberals, progressives, and Democrats ignore facts when heartstrings can be manipulated instead….   which, quite frankly, is almost all the time.

But we Americans are NOT stupid, we’re not gullible, we know that facts matter (they aren’t the “pesky little things” despised by Democrats), and we believe very strongly in the Rule of Law. After all, since we are all documented and tracked by the government (and have been, most of us, since we were born), anytime WE break the law, we surely pay the consequences and we suffer the blemish on our records.

I wanted to give a short overview of the “Separations” issue that all-of-a-sudden has everyone up in a roar, has Hollywood actors calling for Barron Trump to be ripped up from Melania’s arms and thrown into a cage with pedophiles, has Hollywood and the mainstream media vilifying Ivanka for posting pictures on social media of her children, and has everyone blaming President Trump.

This is NOT a new issue and this is NOT a situation created or caused by President Trump. The problem is the result of following the very laws and court mandates that govern illegal entry into this country. The difference between the Obama administration and the Trump administration is that the Obama administration let illegals free into the country after 20 days (to get around the child separations issue) while making them promise to report back to ICE for their detention hearing (which NO ONE ever did.; they simply “disappeared,” undocumented, into our country). President Trump has refused to allow that situation to continue.

The current problem, and the issue the media is focused on (obviously), is the “Separation” problem, as I’ve mentioned. The “Separation” problem stems from the Trump administration’s ZERO TOLERANCE immigration policy which, pursuant to federal law [Title 8. Section 1325 of the US Code, as well as Section 275 of the immigration & Naturalization Act – the two have the same exact language) requires ICE to detain and prosecute every person (regardless of asylum claim) who makes an “improper entry into the United States.” The laws make it a misdemeanor (crime) to enter illegally and also provide for civil violations as well. President Trump is merely enforcing the law and making sure everyone who enters illegally is prosecuted. To be clear, there are several “legal” ways to enter the country, as well as legal avenues to seek asylum, but the border issue is one of “illegal entry.” The ZERO TOLERANCE policy aims to prosecute, and prosecute as quickly as possible, ALL illegal border crossers. But, because of a 1997 Court order (Flores v. Reno (aka, the Flores Settlement Agreement), children cannot be detained for longer than 20 days with their parents. Under the Flores Settlement agreement, children are to be detained along with their parents, but after 20 days, they have to be removed from their parents and given to a relative or a caregiver or agent or to some licensed facility (such as the shelters run by the Dept. of Health & Human Services, HHS), OR the entire family unit is released – which we saw a lot of during the Obama administration.

During the Obama administration, the family unit would be kept in detention (a detention facility) for 20 days and then released – but with a court order to appear at some later date for a hearing on their detention (their prosecution of their illegal entry). Unfortunately, records show that only 3% of the detained and released illegals ever returned for their hearing during the Obama years. So, they didn’t just break the law once (illegal entry); they broke it a second time by ignoring the court order. They are repeat criminal offenders.

This is the loophole that President Trump has been talking about; this is the loophole that allows illegals to escape prosecution and evade our laws…. because of the Flores detainment limit for children. This is why he instituted the ZERO TOLERANCE program.

Anyway, it should be noted that children cannot be prosecuted for illegal entry (as their parents can) because they are children and have not come here of their own volition. So “Separation” has been the US policy with respect to the prosecution of illegal crossers. Add to the Flores decision a law that was passed in 2008 by Democrats in a Democratic Congress (and signed by President Bush) designed to combat human trafficking. The law is called the 2008 William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. Section 235 (g) of that act states that unaccompanied minors (unaccompanied by their parents, that is) entering the US must be transferred to the custody of the Department of Health & Human Services Offices of Refugee Resettlement (rather than to the Department of Homeland Security). The law was expanded to include minors brought into the country illegally (human trafficking, sex slave trade, etc). The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals expanded the 1997 Flores Settlement in 2016 to include children brought into the country illegally. What does this mean?? It means that children suspected of being brought here illegally (being brought by adults not being their parents or having a custodial relationship) are separated and put into a separate detention center (Dept. HHS). If illegal crossers cannot prove, thru documentation, that the children they are bringing are biological or are under the legal custody of the adults, then those children are separated until verification can be made.

Trump’s ZERO TOLERANCE policy ends the separation of children from their parents, but it also calls for the ignoring of the Flores settlement. When 20 days comes, if the illegal crossers have not yet been prosecuted, the children continue to be detained with their parents. I’m sure Trump’s Executive Order will be challenged in court, but it won’t be by Republicans. If Democrats challenge it, we’ll quickly see how much they care about the welfare of the children because President Trump is NOT going to release illegals into our country UNTIL they have first been prosecuted, and he is not going to fall for the guise that “we should do that for the sake of the children.”

Yesterday, President Trump signed an Executive Order temporarily closing the loophole and ending the requirement that children be separated from their parents. As it stands now – until Congress acts, which is should, but which Democrats have obstructed for many years – illegal children will remain with their illegal parents through the prosecution period. He is seeking, at the very minimum, a stand-alone Loophole bill to quickly address the problem and fix the “Separation” situation.

The only reason the separation of children from their parents at the border is an issue at this time is because the Russian investigation has turned out to be a bust (there was no collusion, but the FBI and DOJ sure have a lot of ‘splaining to do !!), the Inspector General’s Report came out (and doesn’t look good at all for the Dems), the gun control marches didn’t work, no one cared a bit about Stormy Daniels and her sex allegation, and Trump is about to receive the Nobel Peace Prize for brokering a much-needed peace on the Korean peninsula and for the denuclearization of that seemingly rogue nation. The Democrats, and their bed-partners – the left-wing media (mainstream media), need something to distract from the success of President Trump and from their own high-level crimes.

Hope this helps.

Sorry Dinesh D’Souza: Your Comparison of Trump to Abraham Lincoln Evidences a Gross Misunderstanding of American History

DINESH D'SOUZA - Death of a Nation (Saving America a Second Time)

by Diane Rufino, June 15, 2018

Dinesh D’Souza’s latest movie is an excellent example of the kind of hogwash that writers and historians can put out there when there is a gross misunderstanding of our country’s history and its leaders.

The bottom line is this:  POLITICAL CORRECTNESS has no place in a society that values intelligence and truth.  WE’VE GOT TO PUT POLICIAL CORRECTNESS AND GOVERNMENT INTEREST ASIDE and  TEACH OUR HISTORY ACCURATELY.

Dinesh D’Souza has a new movie out in theatres. I just learned about this. The movie is titled DEATH OF A NATION (Can We Save America a Second Time). In its advertising, Dinesh uses the movie to make the comparison between Lincoln and Trump – both men elected to be president yet in both cases, the Democrats refused to accept the outcome.

Dinesh explains. “Not that they’re the same people, but that they’ve fallen into the same situation. Not since 1865 have Democrats so dramatically refused to accept the outcome of a presidential election. … The left has been playing these cards against conservatives for a decade. We explore if the fascist-racist tail should be pinned on the Republican elephant or the Democrat donkey.”

OK, first of all, I understand Dinesh’s need to make comparisons between Republicans and Democrats, and to use history to make his point, but in this case, the connection or comparison is a bit flimsy. The country is a far different place than it was when Abraham Lincoln ran. The country was divided along geographical lines – North vs. South.  It was economic pure and simple. In 2016, the divide is along ideological lines – Democrats v. Republicans. Neither party is the same party it was when Lincoln ran. NOT EVEN CLOSE. I can go into detail, and maybe I will at some later time, but the Republican Party was an evil and despicable party. There was nothing redeemable about it, although revisionist history paints them with a noble and compassionate brush.

I also understand the obsession Dinesh has (and I’m happy for his obsession for truth) to explore the roots of America’s racism and its claims of fascism. The left has been playing these cards against conservatives for a decade – maybe more. Anyone who thinks differently from a Democrat or a liberal/progressive is, of course, a racist. Not that anyone even knows what that term means anymore; most obviously it’s the left that doesn’t have a clue. It’s merely a term used to shut down intelligent conversation and to promote perpetual victimhood. And ANTIFA, a violent leftist movement much like the KKK, is a movement that accuses the right of supporting fascism. In his movie, Dinesh makes the case (strongly, as he has done in his prior works) that it has been the Democrats who are responsible for our racist history and who are, in fact, fascists.

The movie, first and foremost, is predicated on the comparison between Lincoln and Trump.

It’s hard to make an analogy between the two figures when both the country is so fundamentally different and when the political parties are so fundamentally different.

But that’s not my big issue with Dinesh’s movie DEATH OF A NATION. The racism and the fascism component is not my issue either.

Judging by its advertising and its poster, Dinesh believes that Abraham Lincoln saved the nation back in 1860.  As Dinesh wrote on Twitter: “Lincoln united his party and saved America from the Democrats for the first time” in the early 1860’s.” He then suggested that this is what Trump’s biggest challenge is and what he must do to “save the nation.”

Lincoln saved America from the Democrats??  Is Dinesh serious??  He writes this as if it were a good thing?  He says this and articulates this point in his movie as if it were a good thing? The Democrats, back then, were the party of the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence; they were the party of limited government and the party of the inherent “right of the People to alter or to abolish it [government], and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”  The Republicans, on the other hand, were the party of big government, the party of an ambitious government, and the party violently opposed to the right of self-determination. They were the party that believed that despite the Declaration’s assurance that in America, government is always temporary, always tasked primarily to secure the rights of the individual and always subject to happiness and satisfaction of the people, government in fact, has the primary objective to seek its own power and its own security and permanence, even when the people reject it and seek to abolish or alter it.

So, it was a good thing, Dinesh, that Lincoln and the Republicans “saved” the nation from the Democrats?

History is history. It should be taught and studied for what it was and what it is. It should be examined and studied for what it teaches all of us about the particular time period and about the people, the norms, and the views and politics of that era. It should NOT be taught or studied to suit current thought, and it should never be taught to conform to current norms, to a current agenda, or to a progressive agenda.

I am terribly disappointed in Dinesh in characterizing Lincoln as a great American leader and using him as a role model. I’ve read many of his books and I’ve usually been impressed with the research he’s done to support his views, but in this case, he has failed to do his due diligence on Lincoln, on the Civil War, and on our nation’s early history. The Civil War was the single most grievous decision by any US President. The Republican Party was an evil party formed for the sole purpose of destroying the South and subjugating its people through a highly confiscatory tariff scheme. It was not the party formed to abolish slavery. (that decision was merely a war measure, designed to encourage massive slave revolts against the women and children in the South and to discourage Britain and France from entering the war on the side of the Confederacy). The Democrats, on the other hand, merely wanted the federal government to respect the interests of all areas of the country equally, according to the Constitution. [Note, Congressmen from the North (Republicans, in both House and Senate; 7 Southern States had already seceded) passed the original 13th Amendment which would have cemented slavery in the United States; it would have completely prohibited the government from any attempts to abolish it]. If slavery is what the Democrats really wanted, the Southern States would have accepted that amendment and rejoined the Union, but they didn’t. They didn’t even consider the amendment.

This is what I wrote in response to Dinesh on Instagram: “Lincoln didn’t save the nation; he destroyed it. He re-made it, but on the most un-American and anti-revolutionary terms (reference to the principles the colonies fought for in the American Revolution). All the problems we have in the country right now can be traced to the government system that resulted from Lincoln’s purely political decision to instigate the war, his willing rejection of our founding principles, and his absolute incorrect re-characterization of our federal union and our Constitution. Thanks to Lincoln, there are no more effective checks on the power and ambition of the federal government. The government of our Founding Fathers is dead. To say Lincoln saved the Union (“saved America”) by fighting the Civil War is like saying a man saves his marriage by beating his wife. Submission by violence is NOT freedom.”

I have no problem bashing and criticizing the current Democratic Party. They voted to take God out of their platform 3 times at their Convention in 2016, they are violent, they are rude and offensive, they are hypocritical, they are un-American in their views, they work incessantly to undermine our country and are now vocal in their hopes that our country fails (just to be able to blame Republicans), and they are highly antagonistic to our essential freedoms. BUT, I am ever so disappointed in Dinesh D’Souza for enlisting Lincoln in any attempt to elevate the modern-day Republican Party.

 

- 2018 (BEST BEST, gray shirt)