(from Brock Townsend)
According to ABC, all applications to the FISA Court were signed off on by the Attorney General and therefore if any applications were processed in the past year, they were signed off on by Loretta Lynch. This means that Lynch signed off on any requests for wire tapping President Donald Trump during the Presidential race. This is disheartening knowing that she released a video over the weekend calling for the need for more marching, blood and death on the streets. This also means that she chose not to investigate the Clinton Foundation for illegal activities but rather signed an application to wire tap President Trump.
Finally, another very disturbing fact about the wire tapping request of President Trump is that the FISA Court turned down President Obama’s Administration’s first request to wire tap President Trump that was evidently signed off on by Attorney General Lynch. With only two applications denied out of 10,700 from 2009 through 2015, the fact that the Obama Administration’s application was denied by the FISA Court is very disturbing. The odds of this happening were 0.02%.
The Obama Presidency is now arguably the most corrupt in US history.
The HONORABLE Loretta Lynch? Seriously?
I know historically AGs have played fast and loose with the law. From XXX to John Mitchell, and beyond…
People speaking of political corruption often invoke Watergate and the Plumbers.
We are so far beyond that it pales by comparison!
And, the whole FISA thing makes it stink even more.
“The Obama Presidency is now arguably the most corrupt in US history.”
Perhaps, not so arguably.
(PS – shouldn’t it read candidate or president-elect?)
There was supposed to be a general strike of female folk to show solidarity against President Trump’s record of abuse (a locker room joke told eleven years ago), and his capitalist/anti-socialist policies.
(And support for the female candidate who lost? The candidate who’s husband is a serial rapist, and who (regardless) whom ‘everyone’ loves?)
Tamara informed us that IF women are to be participating in commerce, it should ONLY be with women and minorities! She surmises Blacks, Asians and other folk must be honorary women for the day!
What I take from the general strike folks is women and minorities are the oppressed. Oppressed by THE MAN! More specifically, the WHITE MAN.
Lemme take a guess here: this ‘movement’ is fomented by The Left, perhaps Soros and company, as another version of ‘protest’ to destabilize society by showing no one supports the current administration. (written before I saw the report below…) 😛
Except, of course, those who voted for him.
And, these strikers failed to consider collateral damage. If kids go to school, and no female teachers are present, where will they go?
The silent majority is an unspecified large group of people in a country or group who do not express their opinions publicly. The term was popularized by U.S. President Richard Nixon in a November 3, 1969, speech in which he said, “And so tonight—to you, the great silent majority of my fellow Americans—I ask for your support.” In this usage it referred to those Americans who did not join in the large demonstrations against the Vietnam War at the time, who did not join in the counterculture, and who did not participate in public discourse. Nixon along with many others saw this group of Middle Americans as being overshadowed in the media by the more vocal minority. (Wikipedia)
I believe we have seen the Silent Majority become silent no longer. Not by taking to the streets, blocking freeways, burning buildings and other crimes, but by simply voting.
Making a statement they have had enough of the Fabian, Marxist, Communist, Socialist, Progressive, One-World “it takes a village” crap that The United States has been spoon fed for more than a century.
As posted by Irish (sent in by Murray. (I have no idea if it was correctly attributed to Paul Genova or not)
By Paul Genova—You Created Us
I haven’t said too much about this election since the start, but this is how I feel.
I notice that many of you are not graciously accepting the fact that your candidate lost. In fact, you seem to be posting ever more hateful things about those of us who voted for Trump.
Some of you are apparently triggered because you are posting how sick you feel about the results.
How did this happen you may ask? It’s simple
– You created “us” when you attacked our freedom of speech.
– You created “us” when you attacked our right to bear arms.
– You created “us” when you attacked our Christian beliefs.
– You created “us” when you constantly referred to us as racists.
– You created “us” when you constantly called us xenophobic.
– You created “us” when you told us to get on board or get out of the way.
– You created “us” when you forced us to buy health care and then financially penalized us for not participating.
– You created “us” when you lied and said we could keep our insurance plans and our doctors.
– You created “us” when you allowed our jobs to continue to leave our country.
– You created “us” when you attacked our flag.
– You created “us” when you took God out of our schools.
– You created “us” when you confused women’s rights with feminism.
– You created “us” when you began to emasculate men.
– You created “us” when you decided to make our children soft.
– You created “us” when you decided to vote for progressive ideals.
– You created “us” when you attacked our way of life.
– You created “us” when you decided to let our government get out of control.
– “You” created “us” the silent majority.
– You created “us” when you began murdering innocent law enforcement officers.
– You created “us” when you took a knee, or stayed seated or didn’t remove your hat during our National Anthem.
And we became fed up and we pushed back and spoke up.
And we did it with ballots, not bullets.
With ballots, not riots.
With ballots, not looting.
With ballots, not blocking traffic.
With ballots, not fires, except the one you started inside of “us”.
“YOU” created “US”.
It really is that simple. You democrats have only yourselves to blame.
Now, I may quibble with a couple of the tenets previously expressed, but I ‘get’ the gist. The majority of folks who are simply trying to live their lives, go to work, raise their children, love their family and friends have decided they have had enough of unnecessary governmental overreach and intrusion. And decided to take action.
And the Left doesn’t know how to react – because they didn’t win, as they expected. And they are not big on introspection and correction – they just react.
As spoiled children.
TUAK so informs us…
U.S. Airport Pat-Downs Are About to Get More Invasive
While few have noticed, U.S. airport security workers long had the option of using five different types of physical pat-downs at the screening line. Now those options have been eliminated and replaced with a single universal approach. This time, you will notice.The new physical touching—for those selected to have a pat-down—will be be what the federal agency officially describes as a more “comprehensive” physical screening, according to a Transportation Security Administration spokesman.
Denver International Airport, for example, notified employees and flight crews on Thursday that the “more rigorous” searches “will be more thorough and may involve an officer making more intimate contact than before.”
*It actually is.
Is there a NEED for more strict (illegal) searches? Have more people passed through with ‘inappropriate’ items? More terrorists or attacks tracked to air travel?
Has Amendment the Fourth been excised from the Bill of Rights?
For the many good things (translation – things of a semi-Constitutional nature) the current President is doing (in comparison to the last guy!), we must remember he is only a Law and Order guy, but he is NOT a libertarian!
He is willing to (attempt to) abolish the Departments of Education and Energy, but not the TSA and Homeland Security.
What does that tell you?
In my mind, more of the same brought to us by George W. Bush and continued (and expanded) by Barack Obama.
(As the President does hold a N.Y. State CCW permit, I think he should continue to push for universal, nation-wide reciprocity. Then abolish the TSA and let the passengers, ground crew and airline crew deal with the threat of terrorism! Fewer repeat offenders?)
(from Conservative Tribune in part)
President Donald Trump followed through on a campaign promise and within the first few days of being in office issued an executive order threatening to cut off federal funding to cities that didn’t revoke their “sanctuary city” stance.
While some cities have followed Trump’s order, many major cites, like New York City, have become defiant, vowing to never give up their “sanctuary city” status and refusing to cooperate with federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents seeking to deport criminal illegals.
Now, a union that represents the Big Apple’s beleaguered cops is firing back.
In a radio interview this week, Ed Mullins, president of the Sergeants Benevolent Association in New York City, blasted Mayor Bill de Blasio and Police Commissioner James O’Neill for being unwilling to work with the federal authorities, The New York Daily News reported.
“Make no mistake about it, the members of law enforcement in the NYPD want to cooperate with ICE. I speak to cops every day — they want to cooperate with ICE, they want to work with fellow law enforcement agents,” Mullins said Sunday on 970-AM’s “The Cats Roundtable,” with host John Catsimatidis.
“There is a moral obligation, and as the chief law enforcement officer of the city, you yourself have to be able to follow the direction of law. We don’t get to participate in the laws that we want,” Mullins said. “That’s total lunacy.”
Newsday reported that Mullins claimed that de Blasio was playing politics because it is an election year, and de Blasio thinks taking the pro-illegal side will help him win.
De Blasio, one of a number of leftist mayors who support (among other ridiculous things) sanctuary cities, finally has bit off more than he can chew.
Hopefully, the legal electorate is listening.
And enough of the illegal electorate will stay away from the polls!
(from Free North Carolina)
In an article entitled “Historic Preservation Still Unites Us” First Lady of Virginia Dorothy McAuliffe touts the worthiness of historic preservation: “May we Virginians, and all Americans, continue to enjoy history through preservation and never take for granted that its lessons are the guideposts to a better future.”
We could not agree more with this statement but recognize that in the Commonwealth of Virginia there exists a hypocritical double-standard regarding historic preservation. Confederate monuments and memorials are currently the lowest hanging fruit – ripe and easy targets for those who view history with tunnel vision. It should not be this way – we as Americans should protect our past instead of shunning it. Existing memorials in our public spaces should not be banished from their long-standing locations based on emotion and divisive politics. The poet John Donne famously wrote “no man is an island,” and these monuments are not islands either – they are connected to the communities in which they reside. And they tell a story, not just about the events and people they depict, but about those who commissioned and sculpted them to vivid life. If historic preservation matters, it should matter for all Registered Historic Landmarks, and not just those deemed “acceptable” by the powers that be.
The attorneys retained to fight Charlottesville City Council’s vote to remove the Robert E. Lee Monument from Lee Park are diligently preparing their case. Rest assured that they do not take this charge lightly and will proceed with filing at the precise and practicable moment.
We appreciate your patience, support and contributions as this issue moves forward. If you have donated, Thank You. We have been touched by the messages we have received and the willingness of people across the country and even overseas to contribute to save history. If you haven’t donated and feel this issue is important, please consider a contribution – no amount is too small to help us win this battle:
Checks payable to: The Monument Fund, Inc., P.O. Box 483, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902. All contributions are tax deductible.
The idea such actions to save historical monuments are even necessary is horrific!
First, I’m a believer in this Nation’s history, warts and all.
Second, didn’t the United States Congress pass legislation almost 100 years ago stating that ALL military participants in the Civil War (or the War Between the States, or the recent unpleasantness, if you prefer!) were VETERANS as such deserving of remembrance and monuments as much as the Union soldiers?
And that desecration or removal of military monuments was against federal law?
Sadly, this is not the only location or action taken against Confederate monuments. Politically correct forces are continuing to try to erase American History (and by extension free speech), lest the young learn about the whole cloth of history!
Please help if you can.
(Yes, yes. I know many think we have devolved into an oligarchy. I’m writing about what we are as a Nation, on PAPER!)
To Benjamin Franklin: “Well, Doctor, What have you given us, a Republic or a Monarchy?”
“A Republic, if you can keep it!”
There are various other versions of this supposed quotation, the essence of which is WE (The United States) are a REPUBLIC!
Remember THIS from Grade School?
“…and to the Republic, for which it stands.”
Speech by Senator John F. Kennedy, Beverly Hilton Hotel, Los Angeles, CA – (Advance Release Text)
November 2, 1960 (excerpts):
We live in a fast moving nation. But one thing constant from the birth of our Republic has been our faith in education and our determination to make it available to all our citizens.
Thus the value and importance of education was at the foundation of Western thought – and was again present at the foundation of the American Republic.
Virtually EVERY President (Yes, even Barack Obama!) referred in some manner to the American Republic! (Don’t believe me, do your own searches!)
We are NOT, and NEVER HAVE BEEN, a democracy!
Then, why do all politicians, even conservative republicans (democrats are a given) make statements to the affect that thus-and-such yatta-yatta this democracy?
Inquiring minds want to know.
I was recently asked (by a liberal friend) my thoughts on the Sanctuary Cities controversy.
To be honest, I’d not given it much thought.
Initially, my gut response was (as I suspect it is with most conservatives in the Republic) they (the cities and States creating Sanctuary Zones) are in violation of federal law.
But then the libertarian part of my brain became engaged. Have these cities and States (or even those therein who are seeking Sanctuary) received due process for their actions? Or is it just the power of the federal government that is forcing these political entities to bow to their will? And, of course those individuals, too.
I remembered, the Republic antebellum, when the States held much more power. But Lincoln killed that concept.
And the federal government has continued to grow ever since! Have you ever seen a warrant, signed by a judge, used for the searches at the airport? Or DUI checkpoints? Or when ‘they’ spy on your computer?
If the illegal aliens avoiding the feds are in these places, they need due process to be extracted and deported. If they are more than illegal aliens (like criminals) they too need due process.
That pesky Constitution so says.
As a conservative, I say go get ’em. As a libertarian, I say wait for proper paperwork. Just withholding gov’t funds to cities and States may be a great tactic (as ‘they’ ubiquitously do with highway funds!) but blackmail is not proper paperwork.
I am a conservative libertarian.
I am all about legal aliens to be here legally, get their ‘green’ cards, and move toward proper citizenship, if they desire.
Illegal aliens? Should be deported. Except is the most special circumstances.
But the paperwork needs to be in order, first.
Not just federal force.
(Here’s a hint, I’m against it!)
And so is Peter. Vehemently, as he writes below:
Richard Dawkins, well known for his militant atheism, has really put his foot in it this time.
In a recent interview with the Times magazine, Richard Dawkins attempted to defend what he called “mild pedophilia,” which, he says, he personally experienced as a young child and does not believe causes “lasting harm.”
Dawkins went on to say that one of his former school masters “pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts,” and that to condemn this “mild touching up” as sexual abuse today would somehow be unfair.
. . .
Child welfare experts responded to Dawkins’ remarks with outrage — and concern over their effect on survivors of abuse.
There’s more at the link.
All I can say is, as a pastor and clinical counselor, I’ve had a great deal of experience trying to help the victims of pedophiles. Many went on to become pedophiles themselves – a cycle that carries on down the centuries, if you go back far enough. Others have had their confidence in themselves destroyed, their ability to love and be love corroded, and their lives ruined.
I’m a strong believer in the rule of law. I’ve worked inside the criminal justice system to help promote the rule of law. Nevertheless, if there’s any one sin or crime that cries out to Almighty God for vengeance, it’s pedophilia. In the words of Jesus himself:
But who so shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
You can debate, if you wish, whether those words were meant to include pedophilia, or merely other types of offence. Personally, I have little doubt. No, scratch that – I have no doubt. If a pedophile were caught in flagrante delicto, I would have few or no moral qualms if the parents of the child concerned executed him on the spot. I think there’d be little or no sin in that; in fact, I could make a strong case for it being the justice of an outraged God.
Pedophiles can’t be cured. Time after time that’s been tried, and failed miserably. They can only be prevented from committing their crimes, either by incarcerating them where they can’t get at children, or by executing them. Harsh? Yes, it is harsh. Having seen too many children’s innocence destroyed by pedophiles, my feelings towards the latter are very harsh indeed! Right now, I’m not feeling particularly charitable towards Mr. Dawkins, either . . .
As I got older, one of the things I never expected to experience was to meet and befriend a number of people – women and men – who had been sexually abused as children. ALL became profoundly damaged adults. Some even became abusers. Such is the nature of pedophilia.
If I had encountered a pedophile in the act, I too, would have no problem dispatching the miscreant.
“Some people just need killing.”
attributed to Clint Eastwood, John Wayne and a number of historical folks
(a sequel, as it were, to Lincoln Lenin, as President’s Day is fast upon us…)
(from Free North Carolina)
These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people.
—Abraham Lincoln, from his first speech as an Illinois state legislator, 1837
Everyone now is more or less a Socialist.
—Charles Dana, managing editor of the New YorkTribune, and Lincoln’s assistant secretary of war, 1848
The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.
—Karl Marx and the First International Workingmen’s Association to Lincoln, 1864
ON DECEMBER 3, 1861, a former one-term congressman, who had spent most of the past dozen years studying dissident economic theories, mounting challenges to the existing political order and proposing ever more radical responses to the American crisis, delivered his first State of the Union address as the sixteenth president of the United States.
Preserver of the Union, or one of the first Progressives? Or both?
If you think progressive presidents began with Woodrow Wilson (ptui!) (forgetting Theodore Roosevelt became the youngest President after an ‘anarchist’ shot McKinley) perhaps you should revisit history?
Fabians Socialists Communists Progressives have been around, even before Marx, constantly eating away at the Republic.
We need to continually ‘check our six’.
And no, I’m not a reincarnation of Joe McCarthy.