Charlie Kirk and Turning Point USA have produced a short video in which Kirk explains in just about two minutes why we need a wall to effectively secure our southern border.
The political prosecution of Lt. General Michael Flynn began on January 24, 2017, just the second business day following the inauguration of Donald Trump. He was set up by then FBI Director James Comey and his second in command, Andrew McCabe.
They sent two FBI agents, Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka, to conduct what McCabe said was part of “an FBI training session.” The training session was obviously real-time practice on how to get a high ranking Trump official to perjure himself.
One of these two wasn’t just any FBI agent. Peter Strzok was the No. 2 official in the FBI’s counterintelligence division before joining Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team of investigators. Strzok became famous last year after he was fired by Mueller after the publication of his strongly anti-Trump texts to his extramarital girlfriend, FBI lawyer Lisa Page.
(First of two parts)
About a year ago, an American hero, Army Ranger and retired 3-star general, Michael Flynn, was forced to list his Alexandria, Virginia home for sale to help pay his legal fees to combat one of the most egregious political prosecutions in the nation’s history.
Former General Flynn is not a wealthy man having spent three decades in the Army. This prosecution has destroyed his ability to seek employment or acquire speaking engagements.
Tomorrow (Tuesday, Dec. 18, 2018), he is scheduled to be sentenced by District Judge (for the District of Columbia) Emmet Sullivan for pleading guilty to one count of lying to federal agents.
The former general’s plight is an American abomination. It is an appalling episode in our history which every justice-loving citizen should despise.
(UPDATE: The Bergen County prosecutor has issued a letter of warning to its police officers that this new law places them at risk to be charged with a felony if they carry a firearm, off duty, that contains more than 10 rounds. Insane.)
Next Tuesday, December 11, New Jersey could intentionally convert as many as one million of its citizens into felons.
Governor, Phil Murphy recently received an early Christmas present when a federal appeals court ruled 2-1 that his new (anti-) gun law banning virtually any magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition is constitutional.
The court said that the law does not violate the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment’s “Takings Clause” because the high capacity magazines do not have to be turned in, just modified to prevent their containing more than 10 rounds.
The New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs had sought an injunction to prevent the law from taking effect.
The law was signed on June 13, 2018 with the stipulation that owners of these so-called “high capacity” magazines had to turn them over or modify them within the 180 day “grace” period. This means that the one million or so gun owners in the state, most of whom may be owners of magazines containing more than 10 rounds will be considered criminals of the fourth degree, a felony that could result in a sentence of 18 months in a New Jersey state prison.
Oh how I miss my home state.
There is a tragic story coming out of Dallas, Texas published in The Federalist about a 6-year-old boy named James who is caught in a life-changing, ideological tug-of-war between his divorced parents.
Divorce scars a child of any age but recent actions by the adults supposedly operating with the child’s best interests at heart may take the permanent damage to a much higher level.
We don’t know how it began but his mother, a pediatrician, took young James to “counseling” with an outwardly pro-LGBT therapist who diagnosed the boy with gender dysphoria. She advised his mother that he should be raised as a girl.
James’ mother enrolled him in first grade using the name, “Luna,” while dressing him as a little girl.
The diagnosis is tremendously critical for young James because he may be required to undergo life-altering physical changes — sterilization — in just two years when he is only eight years old.
Quiz: True or False? This week President Trump said, “We simply cannot allow people to pour into the U.S., undetected, undocumented, unchecked and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, lawfully to become immigrants in this country.”
This quote in fact belong to former President Barack Obama who said in 2005:
“We are a generous and welcoming people here in the United States but those who enter the country illegally and those who employ them disrespect the rule of law and they are showing disregard for those following the law.
“We simply cannot allow people to pour into the U.S., undetected, undocumented, unchecked and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, lawfully to become immigrants in this country.”
Portland Oregon’s Democratic mayor, Ted Wheeler, has chosen to subordinate rule of law and protection of his citizens to the fascist mobs that erroneously call themselves “Antifa.”
For over five weeks this summer, Antifa members camped out in an area next to a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement field office in Portland. They trapped office workers inside by barricading exits. During the night, they blocked traffic on the street that was also a key route to a nearby hospital.
According to journalist Andy Ngo, writing in the Wall Street Journal, when workers made frantic calls to the local police for help, Portland’s police chief, Robert Day, said he was “denying their request…” It could have something to do with the fact that Mayor Wheeler is also the police commissioner.
People who affirm signs like “We Believe All Survivors,” are delusional at best, bigoted at worst. Bigotry is defined as irrational prejudice. To believe all accusers, regardless of any corroborating evidence, is not rational. It is a religion-like, dogmatic embrace of a narrative: that women don’t ever lie about sexual assault.
With extraordinary sensitivity Collins said:
Every person-man or woman-who makes a charge of sexual assault deserves to be heard and treated with respect. The #MeToo movement is real. It matters. It is needed. And it is long overdue.
Since the hearing, I have listened to many survivors of sexual assault. Many were total strangers who told me their heart-wrenching stories for the first time in their lives. Some were friends I have known for decades, yet with the exception of one woman who had confided in me years ago, I had no idea that they had been the victims of sexual attacks.
Over the past few weeks, I have been emphatic that the Senate has an obligation to investigate and evaluate the serious allegations of sexual assault. I called for and supported the additional hearing to hear from both Professor Ford and Judge Kavanaugh. I also pushed for and supported the FBI supplemental background investigation.
And with unemotional rationality she said:
You (Democrats) have taken a survivor who was not only entitled to your respect, but who also trusted you to protect her – and you have sacrificed her well-being in a misguided attempt to win whatever political crusade you think you are fighting
Mr. President, we’ve heard a lot of charges and counter charges about Judge Kavanaugh. But as those who have known him best have attested, he has been an exemplary public servant, judge, teacher, coach, husband, and father
Despite the turbulent, bitter fight surrounding his nomination, my fervent hope is that Brett Kavanaugh will work to lessen the divisions in the Supreme Court so that we have far fewer 5-4 decisions and so that public confidence in our Judiciary and our highest court is restored. Mr. President, I will vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh.
One of the successes of the Democrats strategy of delaying the final vote and potential installation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court is that beginning on October 1, cases are now being heard with just eight justices. This means that any ruling in a lower court that is deemed favorable to the political left, will likely stand with a 4 – 4 final decision.
The first case on the docket in this term for SCOTUS was Weyerhaeuser v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This case has major constitutional implications as a family’s primary asset was essentially confiscated by the bureaucracy with no compensation in apparent violation of the 5th Amendment.
This is Edward Poitevent’s last chance is to keep the U.S. government from simply taking his 1,500 acre tree farm for its own specific use. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) ruled that the land in St. Tammany Parish, La. was a “potential backup habitat” for the Mississippi gopher frog” or as FWS calls it now that it wants Louisiana land, the “dusky gopher frog,” which on the Endangered Species list.
This land is very valuable, worth about $34 million according to Investor’s Business Daily, but the federal government won’t have to pay the Poitevent family anything for it.
Though the majority of American women appear to believe Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s sexual assault accusation against Brett Kavanaugh, the news media are surprised that a considerable number of women find her presentation both unbelievable and embarrassing.
Octogenarian Doris O’Brien, writing in the American Thinker says Ford has “belittled” all women by appearing meek and fragile at the Senate Judiciary hearing last week. She says that if such an encounter (assault by Kavanaugh) actually occurred, by Ford’s own admission, there was no penetration, no physical harm or disability, only psychologically trauma. It should not have subsequently dominated her life.
O’Brien says that by speaking with no one about the alleged incident — close friends, family member(s) or trusted adults — she would have potentially become complicit in any future violent acts against other women by Kavanaugh. Ford says she even left her good friend, Leland Keyser, at the party completely unaware that she was now alone with four guys, two of whom had just tried to rape Ford. Some friend.
Here is what she has specifically detailed to justify her position that Dr. Ford’s allegation does not rise to the level where “a reasonable prosecutor would bring a case.”
1. “Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened.”
Ford originally said that the alleged incident occurred in the “mid-1980s,” but this recollection was later amended to the “early 80s.” More recently it was narrowed down to the “summer of 1982” in the September 16 Washington Post article.
The Post article also stated that notes from a 2013 individual therapy session had her saying she was in her “late teens” at the time of the alleged assault.
For many Americans who watched the extraordinary Senate Judiciary hearing that was held on Thursday, the questions asked by Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford were perhaps not what one might have considered penetrating enough to determine the truth about her allegations of sexual misconduct by Brett Kavanaugh when he was seventeen.
I acknowledge that hard-edged questions directed toward a woman who may have been psychologically traumatized by an alleged event 36 years ago would be perceived to be both politically and ethically insensitive. But the overall destructive magnitude of the charge is so great that I believe Ms. Mitchell’s questions should have been more probing of the alleged event itself.
The American people have a right to know as much as possible about that evening and at this point, only Dr. Christine Blasey Ford can give us any information at all about what took place in or around the Bethesda, Maryland area one evening in, what she believes, was the summer of 1982.
These fictional questions (in color and italicized) are interspersed with Dr. Ford’s actual testimony or between actual questions from the hearing participants.
So let us begin.
New unsubstantiated allegations surfaced this weekend in the New Yorker by reporters Jane Mayer and Ronan Farrow of #MeToo fame. The article accuses Brett Kavanaugh of exposing himself to a drunk classmate when they were both law students at Yale.
Although Kavanaugh’s former classmate Deborah Ramirez was “reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty,” in early discussions with the New Yorker she subsequently became certain and formally made the incendiary claim to the reporters after, as she describes it in the article, “six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney.” (Good to know that 6 days with your lawyer can clear up 35 years with a confused memory. And I’m still not sure what “assessing your memory” means.)
Longtime Harvard Law Professor and constitutional scholar, Alan Dershowitz said that Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s sexual assault accuser when they were teens, Christine Blasey Ford, has a constitutional duty to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
According to the Daily Caller, Dershowitz said, “Nobody should be referring to her as a victim and him as a perpetrator until we hear from both of them under oath, subject to cross-examination. … There is nothing more essential to American justice than the opportunity to cross-examine your accuser, to confront your accuser. It is in the Constitution.”
The Department of Justice’s unethical and unlawful involvement in the 2008 senatorial election in Alaska, of all places, was arguably one of the most important factors in the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and its continuing impact.