Red Flag Laws and Tyranny


Justin Smith again tackle the potential tyranny that will evolve under Dem Party gun-grabbing Red Flag Laws. Some good background to this post is Justin’s article from 8/12/19 entitled, “The Rush Towards Tyranny”.

 

I completely agree with Justin in today’s political Left vs. Right climate. The Right stands for the traditional interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and the implications behind the Declaration of Independence coupled with Christian concepts of Natural Law. The Left – regardless of any FAKE Constitution support – desires to toss the Constitution in favor of a Multiculturalist Socialist (really Marxist) society controlled by an elitist government that tells YOU what to believe and how to act.

 

The Dems are using the epidemic of mass shootings to realize their essentially totalitarian dream government tentacles in everything.

 

Conservatives had better find a Liberty protecting solution to mass shootings OR end up living in the Dem dream.

 

JRH 8/15/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

Support this Blog HERE. Or support by getting in 

the Coffee from home business – OR just buy some healthy coffee.

***************************

Red Flag Laws and Tyranny

Americans Must Draw a Blood-Red Line in the Sand

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 8/14/2019 5:31 PM

 

Outrage and fear are being used by representatives and Senators to attempt to strip away God-Given Rights and rights supposedly safeguarded by the Bill of Rights, specifically the 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendments, and the 14th Amendment and due process, through Red Flag “laws”, and they are exploiting recent mass shootings and the shock of Americans to browbeat and coax them into relinquishing some of their liberty to achieve greater safety, liberty that will be lost forever. And if they succeed, firearm restriction tentacles will spread across this once free nation, choking it, and eventually enslaving America’s children on the land of their ancestors.

 

Once any government gains a certain power or suppresses a right, it is an uphill battle to ever reverse that situation, since today the government’s interest, with the House in Democrat hands, and Senate Republicans complicit, lies more in growing its power more so than in protecting American’s rights. They are certainly making good use out of this current “crisis” and the notion of “Ordo ab chao” — “order out of chaos”.

 

One should recall that the Constitution was written by our Founders to preserve individual God Given Rights and Liberty and to limit the government oversight of those rights and liberty. Enumerating our God Given Rights in the Bill of Rights makes it clear that our Founding Fathers were determined to keep the government from interfering with these rights that belong to each and every American today.

 

The mass shootings in Gilroy, El Paso and Dayton were horrific and as terrible a thing as one never wishes to see happen again in America, but one is more likely to die accidentally falling from one’s front porch with a cup of coffee in their hand, than they are likely to be killed in a mass shooting.

 

In their rush for power and greater control over ‘We the People’, our so-called leaders simply ignore facts. Legal gun ownership had nothing to do with these murders. Our society’s descent into moral depravity and indifference to human life led to these horrific murders. None of the numerous laws across America that regulate firearms, in one manner or another, prevented these murders, but this is a point that Congress seems unwilling to acknowledge.

 

For anyone needing to place blame, there is blame enough to go around on many fronts. The most obvious is in the homes that failed to properly nurture, educate and guide these young men properly. Look no further than leftist policies that eroded the core of families in America, through nonsense like “it takes a village to raise a child” in their attempt to make children look to government as their most important benefactor and protector. Look at the efforts to erase God from the public square and the lives of everyday ordinary Americans, through federal government overreach and tyranny across most recent decades.

 

In the wake of the mass shootings, Ivanka Trump went to Instagram and posted a note, that called on Congress to “enact Red Flag Laws/Extreme Risk Protection Orders [ERPO] in every state, increase resources dedicated to mental health support nationwide and close background check loopholes.” She couldn’t have been more wrong than when she also referred to this action as “common sense reform”. [Blog Editor: The embedded links in the quote are added by the Editor.]

 

Regardless of the horror of what we see unfolding today, Ivanka Trump and people of similar intent are dead wrong, when they seek to impede and infringe on our Second Amendment, and rather than “common sense reform”, these proposals represent sheer ignorance and idiocy and an assault on our Second Amendment Rights. Rather than impede the God Given Right of every U.S. citizen to defend themselves with a firearm, Ivanka and her ilk should be working day and night to ensure that the Second Amendment, an inalienable right, remains inviolate and free from federal government overreach and tyrannical suppression.

 

Similarly, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is exhibiting the same exact ignorance and idiocy, and in a fervor of rare bipartisanship, McConnell and all the Democrats and many traitorous Republicans-In-Name-Only are all wound up and ready to be set loose, like puppets or mechanical dolls. McConnell recently stated, “But what we can’t do is fail to pass something. By just locking up, and failing to pass, that’s unacceptable”, marking a significant departure from his past position on firearm controls and legislation in the wake of the mass shootings.

 

NO! What is “unacceptable” is any more DAMNED infringement on Americans’ RIGHTS in a thinly veiled move to tighten the noose of federal control around the necks of law abiding Americans, while criminals go largely unchecked. Rather than pass one more law aimed at good and decent Americans that suppress their Second Amendment Right, leaders should be urging all the states to rescind any state law that illegitimately and unconstitutionally suppresses this right and ensure that any citizen can walk the streets of America with a firearm at their side, if they so wish to do so.

 

Americans don’t need more “Gun Free Zones”. They need to be left alone and allowed to “keep and bear arms” just as the Founders intended — in and outside their home and in public — and they need to be able to defend themselves and shoot back, if and when such a situation may arise. And then, not only would we see the Good Guys win more often, we would see many sad, tragic murders prevented.

 

Spouting BULLS**T that sounds exactly like some sort of strategic totalitarian philosophy, these politicians on both sides of the political aisle are poised to remove the only obstacle between United States citizens and globalism and the New World Order, since they and their predecessors have already greatly diminished the United States Constitution over the past seventy years or so.

 

McConnell, Schumer, Blumenthal, Pelosi and every God D**ned anti-American godless Commie self-made Son-of-a-Bitch running for the Democratic Party presidential nomination are now using the same bullshit and strategic totalitarianism that has been used for decades to create a generation or two of ill-informed, ignorant masses of people within the American culture, expand the federal and state government welfare programs and keep Americans in a perpetual psychotic state of discontent through Hollywood “elites” and the so-called “mainstream media” mental midgets. Americans have been persuaded to abandon their vigilance to the principles that made America exceptional from its inception.

 

The affirmation of rights derived from natural law, honesty, morality, self-reliance and equality of opportunity; in stark contrast and opposition to modern America’s identity politics, politically correct censorship and thought control, equality of outcomes, fiscal irresponsibility and unlimited government.

 

Is it any wonder that one would certainly look at these “leaders” new proposals with great suspicion? Now they once again demand the consent of the governed, the people’s consent, to willingly restrict our God Given and Constitutional Rights, on whose behalf. Doing so certainly doesn’t benefit me in any way, and it certainly will not make “The Children” any safer.

 

Take note that Benjamin Franklin stated: “Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

 

Unfortunately, President Trump seems to be on board and supporting Red Flag Laws, even if he has walked back his support for federally legislated Red Flag Laws and suggested these were laws the states needed to address. Whichever the case that is closest to Trump’s true intent, Red Flag laws would allow just one neighbor to lodge an unsubstantiated complaint, that someone “might do something”, or to “see something” and “say something” that would enable law enforcement to confiscate all of one’s firearms, without any legal hearing whatsoever. Not only does this violate the Second and Fourth Amendments, it cancels any presumption of innocence and negates due process of the law.

 

Judge Andrew Napolitano is an expert on the U.S. Constitution, who has written nine books on the Constitution, and he phrased it succinctly and cogently:

 

” … Red Flag laws are unconstitutional. The presumption of innocence and the due process requirement of demonstrable fault as a precondition to any punishment or sanction together prohibit the loss of liberty on the basis of what might happen in the future.

 

In America, we do not punish a person or deprive anyone of liberty on the basis of a fear of what the person might do.

 

The government can no more interfere with the Second Amendment rights than it can infringe upon any other rights. If this were not so, then no liberty — speech, press, religion, association, self-defense, privacy, travel, property ownership — would be safe from the reach of a fearful majority.

 

That’s why we have a Constitution.”

 

Criminals don’t obey laws. Citizens don’t require further restrictions. Emotions don’t trump Constitutional Rights. Gun Free Zones aren’t safe. Federal and state Red Flag Laws don’t save lives. And the federal government doesn’t grant us our rights.

 

The astounding proposed and existing Red Flag Laws are merely one more warning sign, a gurgling gasp, in America’s desperate fight to ward off tyranny, representing the “final straw”. Any defeat along these lines means no Constitution, no United States, since they essentially break the social contract and the implied consent of the governed will have been torn asunder, by its own leadership and their inability to facilitate and promote the necessary elements for liberty, such as self-reliance, responsibility and morality. So long as such laws remain on the books and suppress our rights, politicians and all Americans will be less safe, and ultimately, historians and many Americans may look back on this moment and rightly view it as a time that Americans should have drawn a blood-red line in the sand.

 

At the core of these laws one finds only tyranny.

 

By Justin O. Smith

_______________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text enclosed by brackets and all source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

The Rush Towards Tyranny


I find it understandable Americans are upset that mass shootings can seemingly occur one incident after another and another. But What most of those upset Americans do not understand is gun control laws whether they be gun confiscation, Red Flag Laws, Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO) or whatever else restrains the Founding Fathers’ intent for ratifying the Second Amendment; will eventually lead to the tyranny of the Elite.

 

Justin Smith addresses the alarming utilization of government power that restrains law abiding citizens more than law-breaking criminals.

 

JRH 8/12/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

Support this Blog HERE. Or support by getting in the Coffee from home business – OR just buy some healthy coffee.

*******************

The Rush Towards Tyranny  

Eroding Liberty – Unconstitutional: Red Flags & Gun Bans

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 8/11/2019 7:00 PM

 

Americans are rushing towards tyranny more frequently these days, in the wake of three recent mass shootings, and they are calling for unconstitutional and illegitimate new laws that penalize honest and decent Americans in an unconscionable manner, while doing little in the way of creating real solutions. If anyone believes red flag laws, expanded background checks and bans on semi-automatic weapons will make them safer, they are so sadly mistaken, and, if enacted, not only will they not be any safer, they will be less free, with their God given rights further eroded and suppressed.

 

Every law-abiding U.S. citizen should be up-in-arms and in an uproar over President Trump, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and others, such as key Republicans like Sen. Lindsey Graham (SC), Sen. Pat Toomey (PA), Sen. Marco Rubio (FL) and Sen. John Cornyn (TX) pursuing new gun control legislation and “compromises” with Democrats, such as Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA), Sen. Chuck Schumer (NY), Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (CA), especially when any real compromise doesn’t exist, and never will. Even as Republicans showed their willingness to enact stronger background checks and red flag laws, Democrats were screaming for stores, like Walmart, to stop selling ammo and guns and for laws that invoke higher taxes on both, as well as a law banning semi-automatic rifles; Republicans are becoming willing accomplices in the Democrat goal of eradicating the Second Amendment.

 

Despite his bluster and tough talk as a strong defender of the Second Amendment, President Trump is not to be trusted on this issue, since he has a long standing known propensity for gun control, favoring gun bans as late as 2009, and as President, Donald Trump has already violated the Second Amendment through his Executive Order that authorized the Department of Justice to regulate bumpstocks, which also flies in the face of D.C. vs Heller, in which the Court acknowledged that an individual has the right to keep and bear arms of the same sophistication and technological advancement of the U.S. military, since the Second Amendment was written as a measure to ensure U.S. citizens’ rights to arm themselves against any tyrannical government, not to hunt deer.

 

As noted by the Court in 2010 in McDonald vs. City of Chicago,The right to keep and bear arms is ‘among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.”

 

With McDonald vs Chicago, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment was “incorporated”. This legal term placed states and local governments on notice that they must follow the limitations of the Constitution’s 2nd Amendment and could not make laws more restrictive than allowed by the 2nd Amendment, which states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

 

And now, most recently, all America heard President Trump state, “I have called for Red Flag Laws, also known as Extreme Risk Protection Orders.”  Regarding background checks, he stated on August 9th, that he thinks “Republicans are going to be great and lead the charge along with Democrats.”

 

One should also note that although President Trump once suggested foregoing “due process” after the Parkland High School mass shooting in February 2018, he did state on August 5th 2019, that “those judged to pose a great risk to public safety (should) not have access to firearms and if they do, those firearms can be taken through rapid due process.”

 

On August 8th, Senator McConnell told NPR that the Senate would be addressing bans on “assault weapons” and expanded background checks, when the Senate reconvenes in September. McConnell’s use of the term “assault weapons” is part of the Democratic Party narrative that seeks to negate the true and legal use of these weapons for self-defense, and it only serves to further erode the Bill of Rights and our liberty if we allow it to go unanswered.

 

Nobody in America wants to see anyone who is mentally unstable enough to commit violence having a powerful firearm in their hands, but there already exist numerous laws, that if properly enforced would alleviate that problem. Peddling his staunch “defender” title in 2015, even President Trump noted: “Too many states are failing to put criminal and mental health records into the system (making the system ineffective). … fix the system we have and make it work as intended … don’t … expand a broken system.”

 

However, unconstitutional Red Flag Laws are not the answer, especially once one considers the many government abuses that have already occurred in the seventeen states (and the District of Columbia) that have legislated Red Flag Laws. They allow police to convene a Chekist-style secret meeting, that strips an American of his Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights and violates “due process of the law”, since the firearm owners are barred from participating in the hearing and presenting their counter argument, and often, they are unaware of the “Extreme Risk Protection Order[USACarry.com and RomanoLawpc.com] until the police knock on the door and ransack their house or arrest or shoot them, just as they shot Gary Willis, in Baltimore, MD, at 5:17 a.m. on November 5th 2018 for resisting their ERPO. [The Epoch Times and New American]

 

Willis was executed for resisting a government overreach, intrusion and violation of his basic God given rights. I guess America could have just skipped the bloodshed of the War for Independence, since so many now seem to prefer authoritarian controls, serfdom and a King over freedom and liberty.

 

Patrick McLaw

 

On August 22nd 2014, Patrick McLaw, a 23 year old middle school teacher — once nominated for Teacher of the Year [Last Paragraph], was taken into police custody for a psychological evaluation, after he wrote two novels about high school massacres, under the pen name “Dr. K.S. Voltaer”. McLaw had no criminal record, no guns or bombs were found in his home, but the State Attorney claimed McLaw drew police attention through a four page letter he sent to officials in Dorchester County. And in the end, no warrant was issued, no charges were filed and no arrest was made, however, he remained detained in police custody, while they investigated crimes he may or may not have committed, as the State utilized psychopathological mechanisms, the touchstone of totalitarian governments, and fully displayed the great distance our society has drifted from liberty.

 

Dave Workman, senior editor at the Second Amendment Foundation in Bellevue, Washington recently wrote: “It’s (Extreme Risk Protection Order) a great idea on paper. In practice, however, you’re guilty until you prove yourself innocent.”

 

A Red Flag Law in Tennessee might even scoop me up, since in my youth, I used to have a hair-trigger temper, cracked many a ridge-runnin’ redneck’s jaw and quite possibly should have been charged with assault myself, at one time or another in my life. No excuses made from me; I am a strictly no nonsense man who never took being called out of my name or having hands placed on me in anger lightly, and in every case where the law ever questioned me, the attending officer agreed with me, for whatever the reason. However, some past recipients of my wrath would certainly be quick to turn such a law against me, even though I am a much cooler head today, years later.

 

But, having a pistol or rifle in my hands always leveled my thinking, whenever I encountered danger and imminent harm, having traveled the most dangerous areas of America, at one time or another. It tamped down any anger, since I have always been all too cognizant of the power of firearms and the damage they can do, my entire life; and, due to my respect for all life, I never wanted to take another person’s life, if there was anyway to avoid doing so.

 

I’ve had a firearm of one type or another in my hands, since I was eight years old, when my father first started teaching me firearm safety, and I received more instruction in the 6th grade at a summer camp at Columbia Military Academy (Columbia, TN), where all the children were handed .22 caliber semi-automatic rifles, in 1969, for a well supervised target practice; and of course, I received further instruction upon joining the U.S. Army years later. Good people raising good children will make for a safer society. Teach your children well, starting with the Ten Commandments, or a similar moral code.

 

If more gun laws worked, Mexico wouldn’t have had 100,000 people killed by firearms in the past decade. It has the most restrictive gun laws one might imagine, and it has only one gun store, that sits in the middle of a military base and has soldiers for clerks. Restrictions on the good and decent citizens, whether in Mexico or America, only favors the criminals.

 

There is also a much more serious issue at hand: If the Constitution can be suspended in a secret hearing, this can only lead to a despotic government and great tyranny. The Democrats have already proposed the forced confiscation of the American people’s firearms and weapons by armed squads of police.

 

What if this publication could be shut down without due process, based on a secret complaint? Or individuals could now be arrested or imprisoned for 21 days, or more? How far off can torture be?  Eroding the Second Amendment in this manner erodes the entire Bill of Rights.

 

Any American who values our rule of law and the Bill of Rights and the inalienable rights that preexist politics and government should be opposing all the new gun control measures coming our way, as we work to keep the legal and justified means of self-defense in the hands of all law-abiding citizens, since not one state law in this respect is constitutional, and a federal law would not be either. Taking away rights from law-abiding citizens due to terrible acts by criminals, a small percentage of the population, is precisely what our Constitutional Republic was designed to protect against and expressly forbids. The legal philosophy behind these laws is dangerously illegitimate, and far from bipartisan or consensus proposals, they represent a constitutional Rubicon and the point of no return.

 

Y’all can give up your semi-automatic weapons if you’re of a mind to do so. As for me, they’ll have to pry them from my cold, dead hands.

 

By Justin O. Smith

___________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text enclosed by brackets and all source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Killer Pseudo-Palestinian Terrorists as Human Rights Activists?


John R. Houk

© August 8, 2019

 

As a Christian Zionist I’ve never believed the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians should get 0ne inch of the Biblically Promised Land God gave to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; then God enabled the first Jewish possession under the leadership of Moses and Joshua.

 

I realize that is a minority opinion in this world’s geopolitics. And I believe my opinion is even vilified by Left-Wing Jews globally and in Israel, more concerned about their politics than their God-given heritage.

 

Saying that, there are MUSLIMS in Congress that are supporters of Arab-Islamic terrorists calling themselves Palestinians that these Muslim members of the U.S. Congress call the indiscriminate murder (oft times butchery) of Jewish men, women and children human rights activism. I’m telling you this terrorist focus against Jews by Arabs who call themselves Palestinians make themselves undeserving of political power ANYWHERE let alone in their own fake nation that might be called Palestine.

 

Clare Lopez illustrates the picture of these Arab-Islamic-Palestinian killers centering on Congress member Rashida Tlaib.

 

JRH 8/8/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

********************

Rashida Tlaib Glorifies Palestinian Terror While HAMAS, Iran & the PA Pay For It

 

Rashida Tlaib at her campaign headquarters in Detroit Michigan 8/7/18

 

By Clare M. Lopez

August 8, 2019

Center for Security Policy (CSP)

 

No, Representative Tlaib, when two Palestinian savages stabbed to death five members of the Jewish Fogel family in their home in 2011, including an 11-year-old, a 3-year-old, and a little baby only 3 months old, they were not “human rights activists.” That is called terrorism, even though the murderous Palestinian Authority (PA) will pay to the families of the two killers a monthly stipend of $3,200 each as long as they remain jailed in an Israeli prison.

 

What about the Palestinian savage who fatally stabbed Ari Fuld, a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen, father of four and grandson of a Holocaust survivor, one day in 2018 when he was out shopping? That savage, another Palestinian from a village near Hebron, was shot by the heroic Fuld before he himself collapsed, but his family will be receiving around $400 a month from the ever-generous Palestinian Authority while he spends the rest of his life in jail. Then there was Omar al-Abed, who stabbed a Jewish father and two of his children to death and seriously injured his wife in a July 2017 attack.  The PA will be paying his family $3,120/month as a reward for that depravity.

 

These payments are nothing less than incitement to murder and terror. Thankfully, the Taylor-Force Act passed the U.S. Congress in March 2018 and will halt U.S. funding to the PA until it stops paying Palestinian killers and their families for heinous acts of pure evil. But given the depth of the hatred spewed by Palestinian terrorists and their official HAMAS and PA enablers, who vow to continue the payments anyway, that may not be enough.

 

Unfortunately, it is the Iranian-regime-funded HAMAS, PA, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)—and those who insist upon funding them through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and other programs—that poison the minds of young Palestinians from the earliest ages, teaching them that Islam holds  it  glorious to murder Jews because they are Jews, an act they are told will earn them Allah’s approval and eternal reward (on top of those payments to their families). That is called Islamic supremacy, Rep. Tlaib.

 

When a Palestinian suicide bomber detonated his shrapnel-laden explosives inside a Sbarro Pizza shop in 2001, killing mothers, fathers, and children, maybe that wasn’t terrorism either? Or when a HAMAS suicide bomber massacred 30 innocent people and injured 140 in the 2002 Passover attack at the Park Hotel in Netanya, he was just trying to promote human rights? No, the Palestinian savages responsible for those atrocities thought they were going to be shaheeds, rewarded with the 72 virgins in paradise that Islam promises to such monsters. They might even get to have a park, school, or street named after them, to inspire future generations to more such depravity.

 

Until the Palestinians, whether it’s HAMAS and PIJ in Gaza or the PA in Ramallah, stop running children’s summer camps and TV programming that teach young Palestinians genocidal Jew-hatred and provide the paramilitary training to act out that hatred, there will never be peace in the Middle East. But, although her parents were immigrants from Jerusalem and the West Bank, Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan) herself was born and raised in the United States. She graduated from Detroit, Michigan public schools. We Americans obviously have some work to do right here at home: what kind of education at home, in madrassa, mosque, or public school turned out a graduate imbued with such hatred as Tlaib’s? Unless we root out the inculcation of such Jew-hatred and glorification of Islamic terror right here in the USA, there will be more like her, possibly even in the U.S. Congress.

 

Murder of innocent human beings just because they are Jews is not human rights activism, Representative Tlaib. It is a despicable crime against humanity called terrorism.

______________________

Killer Pseudo-Palestinian Terrorists as Human Rights Activists?

John R. Houk

© August 8, 2019

_____________________

Rashida Tlaib Glorifies Palestinian Terror While HAMAS, Iran & the PA Pay For It

 

Clare M. Lopez is Vice President for Research & Analysis at the Center for Security Policy.  She previously was a Senior Fellow with the Center as well as with the London Center for Policy Research, member of Sen. Ted Cruz’ 2016 presidential campaign national security advisory team, Executive Director of the Iran Policy Committee, and a career operations officer with the CIA. Read her complete bio here. Follow Lopez on Twitter @ClareMLopez

 

Copyright © 1988-2018 Center for Security Policy | All Rights Reserved 

 

SUPPORT CSP with a DONATION

 

ABOUT CSP

 

Trump-Pelosi Budget and Fiscal Sabotage


I have to be honest. Working with the reality of numbers often hurts my brain. I’m not good at. Justin Smith seems to have a great grasp of number realities when it comes to deficit spending, the National Debt, Gross Domestic Product and the need of a Balanced Budget.

 

Justin is displeased with the results of the Trump Administration/Pelosi budget agreement and urges a Presidential veto. No matter how much the numbers are painful, the inevitable result will be catastrophic if this Federal accounting disparities continue.

 

However, the realities of America’s political divide demonstrated by near even splits of opposing ideologies in Congress means neither the Socialists nor the fiscal Conservatives will get what they want. Perhaps an idiotic budget compromise keeps the government operating rather than frozen. EVEN THOUGH it’s doom and gloom, if voters DO NOT opt soon for fiscal responsibility a national catastrophe will occur.

 

Trump’s hands are tied by political realities, if voters want a different outcome untie divisive politics – OR ELSE.

JRH 7/26/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

********************

Trump-Pelosi Budget and Fiscal Sabotage

A Coward’s Financial Agreement

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 7/25/2019 7:06 PM

 

A coward’s financial agreement is the phrase that best describes the budget deal recently agreed upon by President Trump and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, that just passed the House with a vote of 284 to 149 at 2:14 CST on July 25th, since it avoids any real battle over government spending by suspending the debt ceiling until July 2021. It raises spending caps and lifts the debt ceiling in the name of avoiding a fiscal crisis, but in reality and ignoring any lessons from 2008, this explodes U.S. debt in a way never seen in U.S. history, and it exhibits President Trump’s willingness to meekly surrender to another massive expansion of the federal budget, that creates a short term political “win” for the DC Establishment of both parties and a long term loss for the American people.

 

This deal received 65 Republican votes, and it spends $2.7 trillion over the next two years. It commits President Trump to signing spending bills that add $320 billion above spending limits set in a 2011 agreement that established automatic spending cuts. This Pelosi Dream Deal also says there will be absolutely no limit on how much new debt the federal government can accumulate between now and July 31rst 2021.

 

The Washington Post was absolutely correct, when it recently wrote that the budget and debt deal would not contain actual spending cuts, since the $150 billion in new spending cuts demanded by White House budget director Russell Vought soon materialized as only [about] 70 billion in actual cuts, that don’t go in effect for ten years and are likely to be reversed by Congress at a later date. This marks a retreat for the White House.

 

Reported by the Wall Street Journal, Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, stated on July 22nd: “This deal would amount to nothing short of fiscal sabotage.” [Blog Editor: I found quote at USA Today]

 

And yet, rather than debate the most serious issue of the day and seek real solutions, the cowards of both parties hid behind “bipartisanship”, in an erroneous, corrupt and wrong-minded fashion, and cooperated to serve their own personal political interests, as DC’s supposed “elite” elected class.

 

Our current National Debt Ratio to the Gross Domestic Product has averaged right at 100 percent, between 2010 and the present. This is even higher than the 94 percent [average] the nation saw between 1944 and 1950.

 

Incredibly, the federal government spent $3,355,970,000,000, in the first nine months of this fiscal year, while running a $747,115,000,000 deficit. President Trump’s Treasury is currently issuing U.S. dollars faster than it did in fiscal 2009 — even when adjusted for inflation — when President Bush signed the bailout legislation for failing banks and President Obama signed a Stimulus bill focused on ending our economic recession.

 

Noted by The Hill, grave concerns on the economy were expressed by the Congressional Budget Office on July 23rd [Blog Editor: I could not confirm a 7/23/19 date, the links in thos paragraph relate to a 6/25/19 date], and the CBO wrote in its budget projection that U.S debt is on track to increase from 78 percent of the GDP to an “unsustainable” level of 144 percent of the GDP over the next thirty years, even if spending caps aren’t lifted and taxes are raised. Now, with the passage of this bill, we are on track to see the debt rise to 219 percent of the GDP, unless President Trump can be persuaded to send the bill back with a demand that more actual spending cuts must be made.

 

Representative Chip Roy (R-TX) was upset with President Trump for negotiating through Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, rather than Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought. As reported by the Wall Street Journal, Roy exclaimed, “The president should be listening to (White House Chief of Staff) Mick Mulvaney and Russ Vought, and he should not be listening to Steven Mnuchin, period.” Roy added that “Senate Republicans will never find a corner where they can go and hide”, implying that Senate Republicans are untrustworthy regarding fiscal responsibility.

 

Once consumed by fiscal worries, this coward’s agreement is one more sign that makes it more than clear, both houses of Congress and both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have become Big Spenders, and Congress is no longer concerned about the extent of the budget deficits or the debt they add. The DC Establishment no longer cares, even as our national debt hits one trillion annually and rapidly approaches $23 trillion.

 

According to the Washington Post, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) recently stated: “Nobody has lost an election by spending too much money”, in regard to Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney’s effort to pay for the spending deal.

 

After the last massive spending deal, President Trump vowed never to sign another one. And yet, here he is again, at the ready and far too willing. He just keeps confirming to the American people that he really is a Big Government Guy and a Big Spender.

 

Today, America barely hears any objections over the exorbitant debt. When Trump campaigned in 2016, he bragged about his ability to prosper from his own debt. He told CNN, on May 4th 2016: “I’m the king of debt. I love debt.” … adding the next day … “if the economy crashed, you could make a deal … if the economy was good, it was good … you can’t lose.”

 

But that’s not just the reality of matters for most Americans who live paycheck to paycheck, and it is just not smart for anyone or any nation to accumulate debt; at some point another bubble will burst in our economy, since Wall Street hasn’t stopped any of the bad business practices that caused the 2008 crisis. And, an economic collapse of 2008 magnitude will pale in comparison to the coming economic catastrophe that deals such as this one are sure to create. Most of our national debt has been monetized, and any bailout for the American people will be virtually non-existent.

 

Niall Ferguson, senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institute, has warned that empires fall when interest on their debt equals what they spend on defense. According to the Office of Management and Budget, this will happen around 2024. If interest rates increase, it could arrive much sooner.

 

Unfortunately, America is currently a nation focused on instant gratification, selfishness and greed, and seems oblivious to the dangerous path it is on. Whether or not the nation can afford all the current government benefits, plus the desired additional costs of free university educations and free healthcare for all, and even though our credit card is maxed out, Americans seem intent on voting for politicians who promise to borrow money to give them what they want.

 

Everyone would do well to recall that in Psalm 37:21 it says, “The wicked borroweth, and payeth not again: but the righteous sheweth mercy, and giveth.”

 

Noting that Congress’s out-of-control spending “is ripping off the American family”, former Congressman Dave Brat recently delivered the following observation to Tony Perkins at Washington Watch, as he looked across the Atlantic: “There’s evidence you can be pathetic for a long time. And the evidence is called Europe. … eventually … debt will impinge on your economic growth rate as it has been. And what’s really missed in the point is it’s intergenerational theft. And I mean that quite literally. We are stealing from our kids and the next generation to the extent that our deficit is $1 trillion. We’re spending $1 trillion and getting the goods from it right now — and the kids are going to have to pay for [everything] we’re consuming. And so it is literally theft. So they’re going to have to work hard, pay their taxes, get tax increases, pay off the debt, and pay all their own personal bills for our runaway spending binge.”

 

America has embraced reckless spending and She doesn’t even pretend to repay what She owes. She incurs more debt daily at an unprecedented rate and most of Her current leaders do not acknowledge that this is even a problem. And so, if our leaders have one shred of human decency and honesty, of a personal or intellectual kind, rather than pander for votes, their bipartisan action should warrant a majority of both parties to end this deal and move forward on a deal that truly cuts all unnecessary spending, or President Trump must reconsider this deal and veto it, rather than continue on a path that watches our deficit soar and attacks our nation’s solvency and the future prosperity of America.

 

By Justin O. Smith

______________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links and text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

My 2¢ What Mueller Could-a Should-a Done


John R. Houk

© July 25, 2019

 

I watched Mueller’s entire testimony before two House Committees Chaired by reprehensible Dems. The Dems pushed an Obstruction of Justice theme committed by President Trump with Mueller – often cryptically – agreeing Dem assertions. BUT as much as President Trump wanted to interfere in Mueller’s witch hunt, the relevant Aids involved essentially did their jobs in protecting the President from bad judgment calls but not doing the errors. Which means as much as the President wanted to meddle in Mueller’s investigation NOTHING obstructive HAPPENED relating to Trump’s righteous indignation of being falsely accused of working with Russians to win the 2016 Election.

 

The Dems persisted though. As far as the Dems on the Committees were concerned, thinking about interfering when you know you are innocent is an obstruction crime. Going after the President for thought crimes smacks of Orwell/Huxley inventing crimes to fulfill the agenda of an all-powerful State. A Big Brother scenario updated to today’s DEEP STATE.

 

The Republicans on both Committees kept asking questions essentially pointing to Russian interference BUT with the Dems and Crooked Hillary paying a foreigner getting disinformation from Russia as if it were facts. In ALL cases Mueller’s answer was not his purview or not getting into that. Hmm… The Mueller Mandate from Rod Rosenstein ORDER NO. 3915-2017 dated 5/17/17:

 

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL

TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE

2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS

 

By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C.

  • § 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as follows:

 

  • Robert S. Mueller III is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice.

 

  • The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

 

  1. any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

 

  1. any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

 

  • any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

 

  • If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

 

  • Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are applicable to the Special Counsel.

 

Once Mueller determined that President Trump did not conspire with Russians to win the 2016 election, Mueller should have moved on to (b) ii. Which states “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation”.

 

It is evident Mueller chose to pursue any crime by people who has any association with Donald Trump before the President’s election even if the crime had NOTHING TO DO with Russian interference in the 2016 Election. If Mueller was actually investigating Russian interference HE SHOULD HAVE LOOKED into the Dem Campaign managed by Crooked Hillary Clinton paying money to a foreign agent in Christopher Steele acquiring Russian disinformation for the purpose of insuring Crooked Hillary’s election as President.

 

Instead Mueller utilized false Russian information to remove a duly elected President Donald J. Trump from Office. NOW THAT HAS TO BE A CRIME of conspiracy committed by Robert Mueller and his team of Clinton Donors/Supporters angry Democrat prosecutors.

 

Now below are some observations from Conservative sources (Dems are unreliable) on the Robert Mueller House testimony. All of the GOP Committee members did a great job demonstrating Mueller bias and witch hunt agenda, but I begin with Rep. Jim Jordan pointing out the obvious. Then I follow the Jordan/Mueller interchange with a quite humorous The United West parody of the same interchange.

 

Then after the video fun, read further criticism of Mueller’s from Fred Lucas and Ann Coulter.

 

JRH 7/25/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

********************

VIDEO: WATCH: Rep. Jim Jordan’s full questioning of Robert Mueller | Mueller testimony

 

Posted by PBS NewsHour

Published on Jul 24, 2019

 

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, questioned former special counsel Robert Mueller during his July 24 testimony before the House Judiciary Committee about how the investigation began. Mueller said in his opening statement that he could not address those questions. Mueller, who led an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible ties to President Donald Trump’s campaign, agreed to appear before Congress, but warned he would not go beyond what was already documented in his final report.

 

READ THE REST

+++++++++++++++++

VIDEO: TUW Exclusive: Robert Mueller Testimony with Congressman Jim Jordan

 

Posted by theunitedwest

Published on Jul 24, 2019

 

Humorous post please!

 

Could this be the real Judiciary Committee testimony???? Sure looks like this was pretty darn close to what actually happened!

 

READ THE REST

+++++++++++++++++++

8 Takeaways From Mueller’s 2 Appearances Before Congress

 

By Fred Lucas

July 24, 2019

The Daily Signal

 

Mueller Testifying to House Committee 7/24/19

 

Former special counsel Robert Mueller on Wednesday defended his investigation of President Donald Trump and Russia before two House committees.

 

“It is not a witch hunt,” Mueller said at one point in his sworn testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

 

He was referring to his probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election that resulted in a 448-page, partially censored report released in May to the public.

 

But many of Mueller’s responses were some version of “I can’t speak to that,” “That’s out of my purview,” or “I can’t answer that.”

 

He also asked constantly for lawmakers to repeat their questions.

 

Democrats on the Judiciary Committee tried to drive home the report’s conclusion that Trump wasn’t “exonerated” for obstruction of justice.

 

Democrats on the intelligence panel stressed that Russian election meddling was aimed at helping Trump.

 

But neither of these points is new. The special counsel’s report concluded that neither Trump, nor his campaign, nor any Americans conspired with Russians to influence the presidential election, but also laid out 10 matters of presidential conduct regarding the investigation that could be construed as obstruction of justice.

 

Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., asked: “When the president said the Russian interference was a hoax, that was false, wasn’t it?”

 

“True,” Mueller said.

 

Trump repeatedly has called political enemies’ allegations that his campaign conspired with Moscow “a hoax,” but sometimes conflates that with the Russian interference itself.

 

Here are eight key takeaways from Mueller’s testimony before both committees.

 

  1. ‘Cannot’ Cite DOJ on Exoneration

 

With regard to obstruction of justice, the Mueller report states: “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him”

 

Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, asked Mueller, a former FBI  director, when the Department of Justice ever had had the role of “exonerating” an individual.

 

“Which DOJ policy or principle set forth a legal standard that an investigated person is not exonerated if their innocence of criminal conduct is not conclusively determined?” Ratcliffe asked. “Where does that language come from, Director? Where is the DOJ policy that says that?”

 

Mueller appeared not to be clear about the question.

 

“Let me make it easier,” Ratcliffe, a former U.S. attorney, said. “Can you give me an example other than Donald Trump where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated, because their innocence was not determined?”

 

Mueller responded: “I cannot, but this is a unique situation.”

 

Ratcliffe followed up by talking about the “bedrock principle” in American law of innocence until proven guilty.

 

“You can’t find it because, I’ll tell you why, it doesn’t exist,” Ratcliffe said, adding:

 

The special counsel’s job, nowhere does it say that you were to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or that the special counsel report should determine whether or not to exonerate him.

 

It’s not in any of the documents. It’s not in your appointment order. It’s not in the special counsel regulations. It’s not in the OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion. It’s not in the Justice [Department] manual. It’s not in the principles of prosecution. Nowhere do those words appear together, because, respectfully, it was not the special counsel’s job to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or to exonerate him.

 

Because the bedrock principle of our justice system is a presumption of innocence. It exists for everyone. Everyone is entitled to it, including sitting presidents. Because there is presumption of innocence, prosecutors never, ever need to conclusively determine it.

 

“Donald Trump is not above the law, but he damn sure shouldn’t be below the law,” Ratcliffe said.

 

“You wrote 180 pages about decisions that weren’t reached,” Ratcliffe said, referring to the second volume of the Mueller report, devoted to evidence of obstruction of justice.

 

Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., pushed the point in his opening question after Mueller was sworn in, saying the report specifically did not exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice.

 

“Did you actually ‘totally exonerate’ the president?” Nadler asked at the beginning of the hearing, quoting Trump.

 

“No,” Mueller responded, adding: “The finding indicates that the president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed.”

 

Regarding obstruction, ranking Judiciary member Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., asked: “At any time in the investigation, was your investigation curtailed or stopped or hindered?”

 

Mueller responded: “No.”

 

Later, to drive the point of a lack of obstruction further, Rep. Debbie Lesko, R-Ariz., asked: “Were you ever fired as special counsel, Mr. Mueller?”

 

Mueller began by saying, “Not that I … ” then answered more directly: “No.”

 

Later that afternoon during the intelligence committee hearing, Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, asked about exoneration.

 

Mueller initially said, “I’m going to pass on that.”

 

When pressed on the question, Mueller said, “Because it embroils us in a legal discussion and I’m not prepared to do a legal discussion in that arena.”

 

Turner noted that the headline from Mueller’s morning testimony was that he did not exonerate Trump.

 

“You have no more power to declare Trump exonerated than you do to declare him Anderson Cooper,” Turner said, referring to the CNN personality.

 

  1. Indicting a President

 

Nadler, the Judiciary chairman, asserted: “Any other person who acted in this way would have been charged with crimes, and in this nation, not even the president is above the law.”

 

Other Democrats said much the same during the day.

 

At first, during the morning hearing before the Judiciary Committee,  it appeared that Mueller was contradicting Attorney General William Barr.

 

That impression was left hanging for well over an hour before he clarified the issue at the outset of the Intelligence hearing.

 

The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has issued two legal opinions, most recently in 2000, stating that a sitting president cannot be indicted. The second one reaffirmed a 1973 opinion at the height of the Watergate scandal.

 

Barr has stated on multiple occasions that those official opinions were not the sole reason that Mueller decided against seeking a grand jury indictment of Trump for obstruction of justice. Barr and then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein later decided the evidence was insufficient to make a case.

 

During the Judiciary hearing, Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo., asked: “Could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?”

 

Mueller: “Yes.”

 

Buck: “You believe that you could charge the president of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office?”

 

Mueller: “Yes.”

 

Later in the hearing, Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., followed up, citing the Office of Legal Counsel opinions to determine whether Trump’s being president is the only reason he wasn’t indicted.

 

“The reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of [an] OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president. Correct?”

 

Mueller: “That is correct.”

 

It wasn’t clear whether Mueller was talking about indicting Trump, or speaking about legal theory behind indicting any president under existing Justice Department policy.

 

Mueller tried to clarify this at the beginning of the later intelligence panel hearing, referring to what he had told Lieu.

“That is not the correct way to say it,” Mueller said in wrapping up his opening remarks. “We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”

 

  1. ‘Collusion’ and ‘Conspiracy’

 

The first part of the Mueller report concluded there was no conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, which meddled in the 2016 presidential campaign.

 

“Collusion is not a specific offense or a term of art in federal criminal law. Conspiracy is,” Collins, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, said. “In the colloquial context, collusion and conspiracy are essentially synonymous terms, correct?”

 

Mueller’s initial answer was “No.”

 

Collins then referred to page 180 in Volume 1 of the Mueller report, which states the two words are “largely synonymous.”

 

“Now, you said you chose your words carefully. Are you contradicting your report right now?” Collins asked.

 

“Not when I read it,” Mueller responded.

 

“So, you would change your answer to yes, then?” Collins asked.

 

“No,” Mueller said, seeming somewhat unclear.

 

“I’m reading your report, sir,” Collins said. “It is a yes or no answer. Page 180, Volume 1. This is from your report.”

 

Mueller: “Correct. And I leave it with the report.”

 

During the Intelligence hearing in the afternoon, Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., asked about evidence of collusion with Russia.

 

Mueller, criticized on social media and by cable news pundits for seeming a little off his game, had some trouble answering.

 

“We don’t use the word collusion. We use one of the other terms that fills in when collusion is not used,” he said haltingly.

 

Welch jumped in: “The term is conspiracy?”

 

Mueller: “That’s exactly right.”

 

“You help me, I’ll help you,” Welch said, prompting laughter in the chamber.

 

  1. Allusions to Impeachment 

 

Nadler, the Judiciary chairman, made what seemed like a vague reference to impeachment during his opening remarks.

 

“We will follow your example, Director Mueller,” Nadler said. “We will act with integrity. We will follow the facts where they lead. We will consider all appropriate remedies. We will make our recommendation to the House when our work concludes.”

 

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., who noted he was also a member of the Judiciary Committee during the 1998 impeachment of President Bill Clinton, asked why Mueller didn’t specify in his report whether there was impeachable conduct–as then-independent counsel Ken Starr had in his report.

 

“We have studiously kept in the center of the investigation our mandate, and our mandate does not go to other ways of addressing conduct,” Mueller said. “Our mandate goes to developing the report and turning the report in to the attorney general.”

 

Mueller, given many openings by Democrats, refused to state that impeachment was what the report means in referring to other venues to pursue evidence of obstruction of justice.

 

Rep. Ted Deutch, D-Fla., said Congress must do it’s duty to ensure Trump isn’t above the law. Other Democrats made similar vague comments, but most did not outright call for impeachment.

 

Later, Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., asked, “Mr. Chairman, was the point of this hearing to get Mr. Mueller to recommend impeachment?”

 

Nadler responded: “That is not a fair point of inquiry.

 

  1. On When He Put Conspiracy to Rest 

 

Mueller asserted early on that he would not talk about the origins of the Russia investigation–currently under review by the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General.

 

“It is unusual for a prosecutor to testify about a criminal investigation, and given my role as a prosecutor, there are reasons why my testimony will necessarily be limited,” Mueller said.

 

“These matters are the subject of ongoing review by the department. Any questions on these topics should therefore be directed to the FBI or the Justice Department,” he said, referring to the contested origins of the investigation.

 

Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., a Judiciary member, asked when the special counsel’s team determined there was no conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign.

 

Many Republicans argue that Mueller could have issued that conclusion before the midterm elections, in which Republicans lost control of the House.

 

“As you understand, when developing a criminal case, you get pieces of information as you make your case,” Mueller said. “When you make a decision on that particular case depends on the factors. I cannot say specifically we reached a particular decision on a particular defendant at a particular point in time.”

 

“We were ongoing for two years.”

 

Biggs pressed: “That’s my point, there are various aspects that happen. But somewhere along the pike, you come to the conclusion there is no there there for this defendant.”

 

Mueller finally said: “I can’t say when.”

 

The former special counsel said he did not have knowledge of Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm that hired former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele, who compiled the so-called Steele dossier, an unverified, salacious collection of information about Trump, including during a visit to Moscow. Both the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign paid for that work.

 

Although President Barack Obama’s Justice Department and FBI used the Steele dossier as the basis for spying on Trump campaign aide Carter Page, and the dossier is mentioned in the Mueller report, the investigation apparently did not look into its origins.

 

  1. What Else He Didn’t Answer

 

Mueller declined multiple times before both House committees to answer why his team did not prosecute Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese academic who Republican lawmakers said had lied to investigators. Mifsud in spring 2016 told Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos that Moscow had some of Hillary Clinton’s emails.

 

Mueller also declined to answer questions about whether he interviewed Steele or Fusion GPS head Glenn Simpson.  During the Intelligence hearing, he refused to answer whether he even read the Steele dossier.

 

Mueller repeatedly answered that such questions were “outside of my purview.”

 

Among Democrats’ questions Mueller didn’t answer: whether the Trump campaign had turned its back on the country, whether Trump told associates his 2016 campaign was an “infomercial” for the Trump businesses, what would happen if Trump wins a second term and serves beyond the statute of limitations for obstruction of justice, and whether Trump had potential illegal ties to foreign banks.

 

He also declined to speculate whether Russian meddling swayed the outcome of the presidential election.

 

Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., asked Mueller whether he agreed with an open letter in May signed by about 1,000 former federal prosecutors that said Trump would be prosecuted for obstruction of justice if he were anyone else.

 

Mueller responded:  “They have a different case.”

 

Swalwell seemed a bit surprised, and asked whether Mueller would sign the letter.

 

Mueller again responded: “They have a different case.”

 

  1. Defending Alleged Conflicts

 

Mueller responded to questions about the number of Democratic lawyers, many of whom donated to Democratic candidates, who worked on his staff.

 

“I’ve been in the business for almost 25 years, and in those 25 years I have not had occasion once to ask someone about their political affiliation,” Mueller said at one point. “What I care about is the capability of the individual to do the job.”

 

Trump has said several times that after he fired James Comey as FBI director, he met with Mueller, who wanted the job back.

 

Mueller testified that he talked to Trump, but “not as a candidate” for the job, in response to a question from Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas.

 

Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla., later asked: “Did you interview for the FBI director job one day before you were appointed as special counsel?”

 

Mueller said he was only advising Trump.

 

“My understanding, I was not applying for the job. I was asked to give my input on what it would take to do the job,” Mueller said.

 

He also defended Clinton supporter Andrew Weissmann, a lawyer on his team and one of the hires Trump and other Republicans criticize Mueller for.

 

“Let me say that Andrew Weissmann is one of the more talented attorneys we had on board,” Mueller said.

 

  1. Trump’s Responsibility and ‘New Normal’

 

Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill., brought up Trump’s tweeted support of WikiLeaks and its hacking of Clinton campaign staff emails. He quoted Trump as a candidate saying, “I love WikiLeaks” and tweeting similar sentiments, then asked Mueller for his response.

 

WikiLeaks is an online operation that made its name on releasing confidential and secret government information

After hesitating, Mueller said: “Problematic is an understatement in terms of what it displays in terms of giving some, I don’t know, hope or some boost to what is and should be illegal activity.”

 

The Mueller report said the Trump campaign was aware of Russian election meddling and expected to benefit from it.

 

Welch, the Vermont Democrat and member of the intelligence panel, said he was concerned that Trump may get away with not reporting Russian interference in the future.

 

“If we establish the new normal for this past campaign that is going to apply to future campaigns, so that if any one of us, running for the U.S. House, any candidate for the U.S. Senate, any candidate for the presidency of the United States are aware that a hostile foreign power is trying to influence an election, has no duty to report that to the FBI or other authorities …, ” Welch began to ask, before Mueller interrupted.

 

“I hope this is not the new normal, but I fear it is,” Mueller said.

 

Ken McIntyre contributed to this report. 

 

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Lucas is also the author of “Tainted by Suspicion: The Secret Deals and Electoral Chaos of Disputed Presidential Elections.” Send an email to Fred.

+++++++++++++++++++++

MUELLER HAS A REPUTATION

Ann Coulter mocks bureau whose attitude is never having to say you’re sorry

 

By ANN COULTER

July 24, 2019

WND

 

It is apparently part of Robert Mueller’s contract with the media that he must always be described as “honorable” and a “lifelong Republican.” (After this week, we can add “dazed and confused” to his appellation.)

 

If it matters that Mueller is a “lifelong Republican,” then I guess it matters that he hired a team of left-wing zealots. Of the 17 lawyers in Mueller’s office, 14 are registered Democrats. Not one is a registered Republican. In total, they have donated more than $60,000 to Democratic candidates.

 

Congressman Steve Chabot listed the Democratic political activism of nine of Mueller’s staff attorneys at a December 2017 House hearing. Here are a few from Chabot’s list:

 

  • Kyle Freeny contributed to both Obama campaigns and to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

 

  • Andrew Goldstein donated $3,300 to both Obama campaigns.

 

  • Elizabeth Prelogar contributed to both the Obama and Clinton campaigns.

 

  • Jeannie Rhee donated $16,000 to Democrats, contributed $5,400 to the Clinton campaign – and represented Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation in several lawsuits.

 

  • Andrew Weissmann contributed $2,000 to the Democratic National Committee, $2,300 to the Obama campaign and $2,300 to the Clinton Campaign.

 

None had donated to the Trump campaign.

 

The media brushed off the conspicuous anti-Trump bias in Mueller’s office with platitudes about how prosecutors are “allowed to have political opinions,” as Jeffrey Toobin said on CNN. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein assured the public that their “views are not in any way a factor in how they conduct themselves in office.”

 

Obviously, no one believes this – otherwise “lifelong Republican” wouldn’t be spot-welded to Mueller’s name.

 

In a fiery rebuke at the hearings this week, Mueller denounced complaints about all the diehard Democrats on his legal team, saying, “I’ve been in this business for almost 25 years, and in those 25 years I have not had occasion once to ask somebody about their political affiliation. It is not done.”

 

No kidding. He’s been director of the FBI. He’s been acting U.S. deputy attorney general. He’s been a U.S. attorney. He’s never been an independent counsel investigating the president before.

 

An independent counsel investigation isn’t the kind of job where you want the hungriest prosecutors. You want drug enforcement agents who are hungry to bust up drug rings. You want organized crime prosecutors who are hungry to take down the mob.

 

But lawyers on a special counsel’s investigation of the president of the United States aren’t supposed to be hungry. They’re supposed to be fair.

 

As for Mueller being “honorable,” Steven Hatfill and the late Sen. Ted Stevens might beg to differ.

 

After the 2001 anthrax attacks, the FBI, under Director Mueller’s close supervision, spent SEVEN YEARS pursuing Hatfill, a U.S. Army biodefense researcher. Year after year, the real culprit went about his life undisturbed – until he committed suicide when, at last, the FBI zeroed in on him.

 

Mueller was deeply involved in the anthrax investigation, recruiting the lead investigator on the case and working “in lockstep” with him, according to a book on the case, “The Mirage Man” by David Willman.

 

During this multi-year investigation of the wrong man, Mueller assured Attorney General John Ashcroft, as well as two U.S. senators, that Hatfill was the anthrax mailer. Presciently, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz asked then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey if he was sure Hatfill wasn’t another Richard Jewell, an innocent man who, a few years earlier, had been publicly identified by the FBI as the main Olympic bombing suspect. Comey replied that he was “absolutely certain that it was Hatfill.”

 

The hounding of Steven Hatfill finally ended in 2008, with the bureau paying the poor man millions of dollars. In open court, a federal judge, Reggie B. Walton, assailed Mueller’s FBI for its handling of the case.

 

Far from apologizing, the director stoutly defended the bureau’s relentless pursuit of the blameless Hatfill, saying: “I do not apologize for any aspect of this investigation.” He said it would be incorrect “to say there were mistakes.”

 

Maybe he can use that line to defend the similarly monomaniacal zealots he put on the Russia investigation.

 

Eight days before the 2008 elections, the government convicted Sen. Stevens of failing to properly report gifts on his Senate financial forms. The longest-serving Republican in Senate history lost his re-election by less than 2 percent of the vote.

 

Months later – too late for Stevens’ political career – Obama Attorney General Eric Holder moved for a dismissal of all charges against Stevens after discovering that the government had failed to turn over crucial exculpatory evidence. The trial judge not only threw out the charges, but angrily ordered an independent counsel to investigate the investigators.

 

Unlike the disastrous Hatfill case, the extent of Mueller’s oversight of the Stevens investigation is less clear. Was he aware of the bureau’s malicious pursuit of a sitting U.S. senator on the eve of his re-election? Either he was, which is awful, or he wasn’t – which is worse.

 

In addition to “honorable,” another way of describing Mueller is: “Too Corrupt for Eric Holder.”

 

[Blog Editor: Help keep WND an independent Internet source BY DONATING.]

__________________

My 2¢ What Mueller Could-a Should-a Done

John R. Houk

© July 25, 2019

___________________

8 Takeaways From Mueller’s 2 Appearances Before Congress

 

The Daily Signal HOMEPAGE

_______________________

MUELLER HAS A REPUTATION

 

© Copyright 1997-2019. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.

 

Omar Giggles Through Interview About Al Qaeda, Ocasio-Cortez Responds


The next time you hear, see or read a Dhimmicrat rail on President Trump criticize 0r denounce the Quartet of evil. Watch and re-watch the hypocrisy of three of these four harpies spewing Anti-Americanism.

 

JRH 7/18/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

********************

VIDEO: Omar Giggles Through Interview About Al Qaeda, Ocasio-Cortez Responds

 

Posted by TheDC Shorts

Published on Apr 12, 2019

 

Subscribe to our channel! https://goo.gl/pyGqbu

 

A video of Democrat representative Ilhan Omar laughing about Al Qaeda has surfaced. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib responded defended her comments.

 

Or visit our website: https://www.dailycaller.com

Check out our twitter: https://goo.gl/fnYe4v

And Facebook: https://goo.gl/W5junb

Or follow Instagram: https://goo.gl/mhVr1Y

And don’t forget to subscribe! https://goo.gl/pyGqbu

 

Next Step Church/State Separation Plague


John R. Houk

© July 3, 2019

Clearly California legislators either failed their civics classes or are viewing the First Amendment in a reverse Original Intent format:

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.  -First Amendment on ConstitutionCenter.org

 

Until activist Courts including SCOTUS began dismantling the Religious Liberty in the First Amendment in the mid-20th century, history CLEARLY illustrates the Founding Fathers intended the First Amendment to mean the government must stay out of all things related to the Christian Church yet Christianity was to be a moral influence on government.

 

Although legal scholars might use an earlier starting point, the big date for SCOTUS revisionism is 1947: Everson v. Board of Education. The SCOTUS decision 5 affirms and 4 dissents. Hugo Black wrote the majority decision and Justices Jackson and Rutledge wrote dissenting opinions. The point being ONE VOTE revised the First Amendment original understanding that stood 160 years of government out of Church but Church being a moral influence on government:

 

Since this ruling in 1947, courts throughout America have looked to this opinion as a watershed from its historical interpretation from the days of America’s Founding Fathers. Justice Black and those supporting his opinion on the Court introduced a completely new element that was and is at variance with the historical interpretation of the First Amendment. Justice Black and his colleagues inserted new law into the Constitution that the Supreme Court justices for nearly 160 years had never seen. The historic position of the Supreme Court and lower courts was summarized by Supreme Court Associate Justice, David Brewer, and his majority opinion (Holy Trinity vs. United States, 1892) and subsequently enlarged upon in his book, The United States a Christian Nation. (The Truth about Separation of Church and State: Error of Justice Hugo Black; By Stephen Flick; Christian Heritage Fellowship

 

A good read on the issue is Justin Smith’s ‘The Fallacy of “Separation of Church and State”’. Another good read is “How the Supreme Court Twisted the First Amendment and Banned Religion in Public Schools” by Zachary Garris at Teach Diligently.

 

The Dems are perpetuating this assault on Religious Liberty via the Dem sponsored Equality Act (H.R. 5) in the House. The aim of the Equality Act is to force Americans (undoubtedly aimed Biblical-minded Christians) to further accept the godless LGBTQ lifestyle. If the Republican majority Senate passes its version of the Equality Act (S. 788) introduced on March 13, God have mercy on America.

 

What brought these thoughts to fruition though is State legislation in Leftist haven of California. My July 3 news alert from Prophecy News Watch (PNW) informs me a California State bill would force Christian Pastors/Preachers to zip their lips on preaching the Bible about the godless homosexual lifestyle.

 

The California Bill is ACR 99 and it “… would FORBID pastors from saying homosexual acts are sinful? A bill REQUIRING them to affirm same-sex relationships and gender identity? It has been proposed!” (The bold text is my emphasis of the quote in the PNW article.)

 

If read or hear the Left (these days that includes some Churches who have abandoned the Word of God) tell you, “The Bible does not condemn homosexuality”; those sources are blatantly lying and maybe even twisting the original meaning of Scripture with completely faulty revisionist scholarship. (Just like activist Judges and Justices to the U.S. Constitution.) HuffPo is a classic example of twisted-lying Left-Wing sourcing. If you are a Bible-believing Christian belonging to this Wikipedia list (as of today last updated 7/3/19) of Churches accepting LGBTQ in one fashion or another, YOU are in danger of placing yourself in rebellion to God (choosing the same path of Adam and Eve [godless Adam & Steve or Adriana & Eve]). Rebellion causes God-Separation, aka the Second Death (Genesis 3: 1-9; 1 John 2: 15-17 HCSB):

 

Genesis – The Temptation and the Fall

1Now the serpent was the most cunning of all the wild animals that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You can’t eat from any tree in the garden’?”

The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit from the trees in the garden. But about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, God said, ‘You must not eat it or touch it, or you will die.’”

“No! You will not die,” the serpent said to the woman. “In fact, God knows that when[a] you eat it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God,[b]knowing good and evil.” Then the woman saw that the tree was good for food and delightful to look at, and that it was desirable for obtaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves.

 

Sin’s Consequences

Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden at the time of the evening breeze,[c] and they hid themselves from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. So the Lord God called out to the man and said to him, “Where are you?[Bold text Editor’s – Signifies God-Separation]

 

1 John 2

15 Do not love the world or the things that belong to[a] the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in him. 16 For everything that belongs to[b] the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride in one’s lifestyle—is not from the Father, but is from the world. 17 And the world with its lust is passing away, but the one who does God’s will remains forever. [Bold text Editor’s – Homosexuality is only one of many sins of the world separating one from God.]

 

JRH 7/3/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

***********************

Why This New California Bill Is So Dangerous To The Church

 

Gay Church Flag

 

By MICHAEL BROWN/ASKDRBROWN.ORG

JULY 03, 2019

Prophecy News Watch

 

Last week, I put out a warning about a bill under consideration in California known as ACR 99. I explained “Why California Pastors Must Stand Up to Government Tyranny.”

 

I also tweeted about the bill. I asked: “What? A California bill that would FORBID pastors from saying homosexual acts are sinful? A bill REQUIRING them to affirm same-sex relationships and gender identity? It has been proposed!”

 

One of my Twitter followers, a younger Christian man, challenged my reading of the bill. He insisted that it did not infringe on Christian liberties. Is he right?

 

Let’s take a look at this bill more carefully. Once we do, you’ll understand why Christian legal organizations, along with pastors and ex-gay leaders in California, are so concerned.

 

The Bill is Bad

 

The final text of the bill states this: “This measure would call upon all Californians to embrace the individual and social benefits of family and community acceptance, upon religious leaders to counsel on LGBTQ matters from a place of love, compassion, and knowledge of the psychological and other harms of conversion therapy, and upon the people of California and the institutions of California with great moral influence to model equitable treatment of all people of the state.”

 

Is this really so bad? Yes.

 

First, who gave the government the right to issue a call like this? Who gave the government the right to tell religious leaders that they cannot help people with unwanted same-sex attractions pursue change? (Broadly speaking, that’s what “conversion therapy” ultimately refers to. The term, of course, is used in a derogatory way.) If ever there was an overstepping of the separation of Church and State, this would be it.

 

Second, what, exactly, is meant by “equitable treatment of all people of the state”? Based on the findings which form the foundation of this bill, it would mean affirming transgender identity and transgender “rights,” even when those “rights” infringed on the rights of others.

 

And this is not just idle talk. The bill passed it its committee vote and is heading to the California Senate for a full vote. Let’s dig in a little deeper to see exactly what California pastors and religious leaders are facing.

 

The Presuppositions

 

ACR 99 is based on a number of presuppositions, all introduced with the word WHEREAS. Here’s the first: “The California State Legislature has found that being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBTQ) is not a disease, disorder, illness, deficiency, or shortcoming.”

 

Based on this, it would be wrong to believe or teach that homosexual practice is sinful. Or that homosexual desires are disordered. Or that there is anything wrong with homosexual relationships. Or that a man who believes he is a woman has any type of deficiency. And this is just the first of the 9 “WHEREAS” clauses!

 

Another clause rejects any attempts to change a person’s LGBTQ identity. (This appears under the heading of “conversion therapy.”)

 

And another states that “the stigma associated with being LGBTQ often created by groups in society, including therapists and religious groups, has caused disproportionately high rates of suicide, attempted suicide, depression, rejection, and isolation amongst LGBTQ and questioning individuals.”

 

In other words, if you preach and teach what the Bible says about LGBTQ issues and people, no matter how loving and compassionate you are, you are guilty of stigmatizing them, thereby causing them emotional and even physical harm.

 

The intent of this bill is perfectly clear.

 

The Government Telling Pastors What to Preach

 

That’s why Liberty Counsel issued a warning, stating, “CA RESOLUTION THREATENS PASTORS AND COUNSELORS.”

 

Specifically, the resolution “calls on religious leaders and others with ‘moral influence’ to affirm homosexuality and ‘transgenderism’ and to accept that Christian efforts to help people with unwanted same-sex attraction or gender confusion are ‘ineffective, unethical and harmful.’ As a resolution, ACR 99 does not have the force of law but will be persuasive for some policymakers. It will now go to the state Senate for a vote.”

 

That’s why the California Family Council, which is on the front lines of this legislative battle, wrote that “CA Legislators to Tell Pastors What to Preach from their Pulpits on LGBT Behavior & Identities.”

 

Life and Hope

 

And that’s why ex-gay leaders Ken Williams and Elizabeth Woning protested the bill. As Woning wrote, “For us, walking out our faith with biblical conviction means life and hope. Our faith has saved us from suicide and given us freedom to live with clear consciences. We too would like to be acknowledged and affirmed. … Instead, activists attack our efforts to care for like-minded friends by promoting dangerous counseling restrictions and stifling our free speech.”

 

In short, this bill would state that pastors and Christian counselors do not have the right to walk out their faith and live out their biblical convictions.

 

It would stop them from offering the fullness of the Gospel to people with unwanted same-sex attractions and gender identity confusion. And it would constitute, in no uncertain terms, a frontal assault on their — and our — religious liberties.

 

That’s why it must be resisted.

 

Originally published at AskDrBrown.org – reposted with permission.

_______________________

Next Step Church/State Separation Plague

John R. Houk

© July 3, 2019

___________________

Why This New California Bill Is So Dangerous To The Church

 

© 2019 Prophecy News Watch. All Rights Reserved.
Located in Coeur D Alene, Idaho – USA.
Call Toll Free: 1-877-561-4442
Email: Info@ProphecyNewsWatch.com

 

DONATE to PNW